Role of the US Federal Gov't - Is this overreach?

[Accountable]

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1414759

Accountable: "Along those lines (and really a different subject) do you approve or disapprove of the federal gov't using tax dollars to force state & local gov't to pass laws that Washington can't legally do themselves?

We can start a new thread if you'd like."



Ahso!: "You do it. It's a philosophical question for me as opposed to, I assume, a constitutional one for you."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's kind of a mix for me, really. As you know, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerate the powers bestowed upon Congress. The first words are "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ...." So the Congress can collect taxes to pay for the general welfare, which is about as ambiguous a term as exists, so it is constitutional for the federal gov't to collect extra taxes to help states that need the assistance (read: redistribute the wealth). It's even constitutional for the federal gov't to collect enough taxes to redistribute to all 50 states, even though some states are not receiving as much from Washington as its citizens sent there.

It's understandable that there would be strings attached to federal funds. After all, a state doesn't have to accept the handouts, though its citizens do have to pay taxes to provide them. The strings would understandably designate what the funds are to be used for, such as infrastructure, welfare, education, etc.

What crosses the line, in my opinion, is when Washington links the funds to legislation the states would not otherwise be required to pass, and might not pass if not forced to do so.

One such law was the standardization of the minimum drinking age. In Louisiana, one could drink alcohol on one's 18th birthday. In Mississippi, 18-year-olds could drink beer, but had to wait until 21 to drink hard liquor. Each state has it's own law. In the 1970's Washington linked federal funding for highway maintenance to raising the drinking age to 21. If a state refused to raise the drinking age, Washington refused to give the highway funds. Since the Constitution has no provision empowering Congress to dictate the age at which a person is allowed to drink alcohol, this mandate is clearly and blatantly overreach of it's enumerated powers.

More recent examples are in states' education systems. No Child Left Behind, school lunch programs, and attempts to mandate teacher hiring and assessment practices are all federal issues, but are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

"Here's $X.00 to be spent on [fill in the blank]." That should be the extent of the strings attached to federal funding. If waste is a concern, then don't provide funding. Waste issue eliminated.

[tude dog]

One of the problems with defining the separation of powers between the Federal and State government is the Supreme Court. Specifically it seems they allow the Federal government great leeway when it comes to the Feds use of the Commerce Clause to create law.

This is nothing new, an often time cited abuse would be Wickard v. Filburn

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.


Not to get into the gun discussion, but this is a good example of just how the Feds try to exercise power not authorized to them.

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the original Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.

Although the amended GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the United States Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several United States Circuit Courts. In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v. Dorsey,[7] the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised version of the law.




First time in half a century doesn't seem to slow Congress down.

[Accountable]

tude dog;1414816 wrote: One of the problems with defining the separation of powers between the Federal and State government is the Supreme Court. Specifically it seems they allow the Federal government great leeway when it comes to the Feds use of the Commerce Clause to create law.

This is nothing new, an often time cited abuse would be Wickard v. Filburn
I agree. In fact SCOTUS routinely publishes in their opinions the following: "every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality." I tried to run it to ground when it was first written but got tired after finding it in 6 or 8 different opinions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So what do you think about Washington using constitutional means (federal funding) to control state legislation?

[Ahso!]

For me this issue always comes down to Jeffersonians vs Hamiltonians. What can anyone say: It appears Hamilton won this argument in the long run.

I personally don't get hung up on the constitutionality of these issues, rightly or wrongly. I interpret any intrusion in my daily life by government as being by proxy for industry. I live with that, sometime very reluctantly.

Our three branches of government are going to react in accordance with the times the participants occupy. In the minds of the people serving, the constitution is going to be interpreted based on the driving fears and/or luxuries in a given period. That's human nature.

I respect and admire your knowledge on the constitution but I think these issues have been made so cloudy and confusing to the average person that the majority will continue to be manipulated and driven the way market forces dictate. And that's what all the negotiation is about: how will market forces decide to drive the will of the people. It's now a science and the framers of the constitution had no clue just how much of a science it would become.

In the case of the drinking age, insurance companies don't want to fight with themselves and so I imagine were at least one group who had a vested interest of that law, so they pleaded their case (and probably bled some money) to the officials and won. though I would also mention that it's very likely religious groups were active participants wanting a higher drinking age.

The school system is a disaster from head to toe in my view, as you know. Certain industries have influence in that issue. As time goes on the education system seems to become more of a mockery than anything else.

I'm not an attorney or a constitutional scholar, so this is the best I've got for you. I hope it's enough.

ETA: I'm okay with redistribution of funds so to even a playing field.

[Accountable]

I found this on Jefferson v Hamilton: http://www.palomar.edu/ehp/history/sgre ... POINTS.pdf

Pretty interesting and very quick overview for anyone reading the thread.

Your realism sure sound defeatist sometimes. :yh_wink We each have to choose our battles though, eh?

The Constitution is very short. I only have average intelligence, I think, but great interest is more important than great intelligence. In the short run, knowing so much about the Constitution only serves to raise my blood pressure.

I only brought up the examples to address the more general issue. It's not the redistribution that bothers me. That's legal. It's the use of the redistribution to control the operation of state governments.

Shouldn't the federal gov't be limited to federal issues, as defined by the Constitution?

If not, shouldn't we honor the rule of law by removing our Constitution as the supreme law of the land? Not every country has a constitution and they seem to dysfunction just fine without one.

[Ahso!]

I'm nothing of a wimp, you should know that about me. I choose to address the situation from a different angle, that's all. I understand business practices and marketing specifically. So that's my perspective.

I only brought up the examples to address the more general issue. It's not the redistribution that bothers me. That's legal. It's the use of the redistribution to control the operation of state governments. Of course it's wrong IMO, any intentional manipulation that causes others to wrok against their own interests is morally reprehensible. That's why I left the corporate world.

Shouldn't the federal gov't be limited to federal issues, as defined by the Constitution?

I don't know the answer to that question. In today's world, I'd probably say No.

If not, shouldn't we honor the rule of law by removing our Constitution as the supreme law of the land? Not every country has a constitution and they seem to dysfunction just fine without one. I don't know the answer to that one either. What I would say is that all things exist in America for convenience sake. Is that right or wrong? I just don't know. I know that I don't much care for much what I've been witnessing, especially lately.

I do the best I can with what I have. I vote; I communicate to others; I try to have enough serious dialogue with others; I speak my mind; I've raised my children with the values I find important and I've encouraged them to stand for what they think is right; I write letters to my officials; I sometimes sit in on local political meetings; and I live my life exactly as I express it verbally.

I'm noting of a defeatist.

Look at how impatient some people in this forum are becoming because I refuse to drop the gun issue. And I won't because the American people cannot not get used to the idea of children dying by the use of guns.

ETA: I like the "dysfunction" line.