Replies

The Stimulus money is is an important leverage point the Obama Administration is using to enlarge federal powers.

In a demonstration of the “spending power,” the federal government has indicated that it will hold back $6.1 billion in stimulus funds to California if the legislature does not rescind a cut they made in State contributions toward the wages of In Home Support Services (IHSS) workers. (These are workers who provide domestic and non-medical services to the elderly and disabled in their homes.)

Both the federal and the State law act directly upon individuals. Federal law does not act upon the States, and is specifically precluded from doing so under the doctrine of “dual sovereignty.” Provisions of various federal laws may not be applied in such a manner so as to: (1) Coerce or force any State into an agreement to implement a federal program or law; (2) Devise any State program or provisions thereof in compliance with a federal law or subject to the approval of a federal agency; or (3) Command State law enforcement, or other State officers to enforce a federal law or federal agency directives. Where there is a real conflict between legitimate federal and State law, federal law pre-empts the State law.

The State may not voluntarily agree to an enlargement of federal jurisdiction into its jurisdictional sphere when such is not authorized by a legitimate enumerated federal power. [New York v. United States, 120 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1992.)] However, under what has been termed “cooperative federalism,” it may be allowed to enact a State law to minimum federal standards in lieu of legitimate federal regulation that would otherwise preempt State law. The State may also accept a federal grant conditional upon compliance with provisions designed to advance a federal interest or program. [South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987); New York v. United States 505 US 144 (1992).] This is how the federal Stimulus program under current State budgetary challenges around the nation can enlarge federal control.