"New Politics" in Action

[haha]

SC governor Mark Sanford wanted to use some stimulus money to pay down debt. He got his answer:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759827524401409.html"

 

[FIREd]

Perhaps he should have kept his opposition to the stimulus bill a bit more quiet...

 

[ziggy29]

One of the worst things to happen to the 10th Amendment since the Civil War was the rise in the use of "federal funds" as an end run around states' rights.

They effectively blackmail the states into passing laws the federal government has no Constitutional authority to force on them. And even if they don't comply, the feds have no issue with taking the tax money of that state's residents even as the feds punish the state for not caving into federal demands by withholding "federal funds" from that state.

 

[Westernskies]

SC governor Mark Sanford wanted to use some stimulus money to pay down debt. He got his answer:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759827524401409.html"

careful, ha...

 

[ChrisC]

One of the worst things to happen to the 10th Amendment since the Civil War was the rise in the use of "federal funds" as an end run around states' rights.

They effectively blackmail the states into passing laws the federal government has no Constitutional authority to force on them. And even if they don't comply, the feds have no issue with taking the tax money of that state's residents even as the feds punish the state for not caving into federal demands by withholding "federal funds" from that state.

Hmmmmm, the 10th Amendment is trumped by the first 9 Amendments to the Constitution as well as the 13th, 14th (which brought in the first 9), 15th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 24th, and 26th Amendments. Seems like the 10th Amendment does not have alot of significance in our modern times, perhaps it merely states an obvious tautology. Oh, and I forgot there are other clauses in the original Constitution that also trump the 10th Amendment as well.

 

[lets-retire]

Oh, and I forgot there are other clauses in the original Constitution that also trump the 10th Amendment as well.

It doesn't work that way. The Amendments CHANGE or CLARIFY the Constitution not the other way around.

Gov Sanford is making sense. His reasoning is also why my Gov and the Gov from the neighboring state have refused federal funds for programs that will continue after the federal funds stop. Many of Clinton's' highly tauted 100,000 newly minted police officer positions suffered the same fate. As soon as the federal money stopped coming in many of the positions were eliminated. Fortunately many agencies knew when the funds would stop and just didn't fill a position when one became vacant, so few officers lost their job.

A lot of the federal money is for programs that must be funded after the money runs out. I would hold that much of the money for the programs would be spent in the ramp up and not actually spent on the program. So the state would spend a bunch of federal money on ramping up and be stuck holding the bag for the implementation. Sounds kind of like the government paying all of your fees to obtain a mortgage you don't really need, but then leaving you paying a mortgage you can barely, if at all, afford and really don't want.

 

[ChrisC]

It doesn't work that way. The Amendments CHANGE or CLARIFY the Constitution not the other way around.

You're overstating the case for Amendments. In some cases, they do not alter or clarify embedded Clauses in the Original Consitution. (A good example is the Privileges and Immunities Clauses contained in Article IV of the Original Constitution and in the 14th Amendment, both of which are directed at the States and prevent the States from discriminating against citizens of the States. The same Clause in the 14th Amendment does not change or clarify the comparable Clause in Article IV.) You might ask, why an Amendment? Some Amendments (as well as many that have been proposed in the past)might have an affirming quality to them: they might just state the obvious and not alter current legal relationships.

My point here is that the 10th Amendment does not, if you read it carefully, alter the Necessary and Proper Clause (and the doctrine of implied powers of the Federal Government that the US Supreme Court espoused many years ago) of the Original Constitution. And that Clause when tied to other provisions of the Original Constitution in Article I augments the Federal Government's authority to operate in many areas that the States might also operate or to condition the State's acceptance of Federal dollars on compliance with Federal initiatives.

So, in a sense, the 10th Amendment doesn't change anything in the Original Constitution! In fact, I'm not sure it clarifies anything!

 

[lets-retire]

It absolutely clarifies the fact that any power not granted to the federal government or the states is the responsibility of the states or the people. The reason it was put into the Amendments was so the federal government couldn't come in years later and implement programs, claiming that since it isn't stipulated to the be the responsibility of the states or the people it was the responsibility of the federal government. It was designed to limit the power of the federal government. You are correct that later court decisions have essentially negated the power of the 10th Amendment, but that is for another discussion.

 

[ChrisC]

It absolutely clarifies the fact that any power not granted to the federal government or the states is the responsibility of the states or the people. The reason it was put into the Amendments was so the federal government couldn't come in years later and implement programs, claiming that since it isn't stipulated to the be the responsibility of the states or the people it was the responsibility of the federal government. It was designed to limit the power of the federal government. You are correct that later court decisions have essentially negated the power of the 10th Amendment, but that is for another discussion.

No, it's not a basis for another discussion because what preceeded this statement is a view that has not been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court or any serious Constitutional scholar (and I wouldn't consider Ron Paul to be one).

 

[Westernskies]

Where is Texarkandy when we need him most?

 

[FinanceDude]

No, it's not a basis for another discussion because what preceeded this statement is a view that has not been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court or any serious Constitutional scholar (and I wouldn't consider Ron Paul to be one).

Why are we talking about the Constitution when most if not all judges don't follow it anyway??

 

[ChrisC]

Why are we talking about the Constitution when most if not all judges don't follow it anyway??

Oh you mean like John Marshall, who was around when the Constitution rolled off the printing press, right?

 

[armor99]

There is a larger war going on in the govt these days. I have been seeing it with more frequency that ever though. For some... there is an active attempt to make the meaning of words meaningless. There are people out there that will debate with you all day long about how what words mean... are not REALLY what they mean. THey will twist and turn and ultimately try to convince you that the dictionary itself is wrong, and printed word can mean anything that you want them to.

It is an attempt to re-write reality. Of course it is not really possible to do that, but lots of folks continue to try.

 

[lets-retire]

No, it's not a basis for another discussion because what preceeded this statement is a view that has not been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court or any serious Constitutional scholar (and I wouldn't consider Ron Paul to be one).

Sadly your position is true now. It started around the end of the 1800's and has continued in that vein until modern days, where for all intents and purposes the 10th has no meaning at all. To see the changes in thought look at the 13th and 18th amendments. The 13th outlawed slavery, with the exception of a punishment for a crime. This could have easily been passed as a law. I can also see where this was implemented as an amendment simply to make it difficult to repeal but this is the first time slavery had been dealt with in the Constitution. The 18th outlawed alcohol. We have similar laws, not amendments, for marijuana, hashish, LSD, etc. and they didn't require an amendment to the Constitution. Why not? It was the change in Constitutional thought.

The 10th amendment was put into the Constitution to ally fears that the federal government would attempt to take more power than people were willing to give it. The word "expressly" was not put into the amendment so the Constitution had room to breath. This was done so 200 years later the people who believe in a strict reading of the document could not limit the government to what was happening in the 1700's. The founding fathers knew technology would advance into areas they didn't even know existed. Take interstate highways, for example,they are used for the commerce of the United States, but are not expressly authorized by the Constitution as a power of the federal government. Because they are for the commerce of the US, the federal government is authorized to provide funding for the highways.

Now that this thread has been throughly hijacked, I'll not speak on the Amendment topic again, in this thread.

Edited to add: If the Supreme Court says an eraser is a duck it is a duck. The arguement is over. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the 10th Amendement doesn't say anything, so it doesn't say anything.