# Handicapping the 2014 midterms **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 5, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960 "2014-01-05T19:29:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/121 "2014-05-05T19:26:55Z")
> [@WreckingCrew](#): > > Interesting - and I am not disagreeing with you, but I have never really put much value in Governors. But that is perhaps the two states I am most familiar with, RI and MA, have such vast Dem majorities in their state assemblies that the Governor is often an afterthought no matter what party they are from. Legislatures are crucial too. Given the recent resistance put up by states to the federal government’s mandates, governors are more important than in the past. The states have always been sovereign entities, delegating voluntarily only certain powers to the federal government. For awhile there, the states stopped acting sovereign, but now they are starting to assert themselves a little more(even some Democratic-led states, like Montana, where Schweitzer signed a bill nullifying federal gun laws). And since it is 100% legal, not some threat to the constitutional order, having a lot of Republican governors creates yet another veto point to stop the Democratic agenda. Controlling both chambers of Congress would be nice, but we already have one, so Congress can’t do anything without Republican assent. But if the GOP lost a lot of those state governments, then the new Democratic governors and legislatures could implement a lot of those federal mandates that have been held up by Republican resistance. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/122 "2014-05-05T19:46:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > For awhile there, the states stopped acting sovereign, but now they are starting to assert themselves a little more(even some Democratic-led states, like Montana, where Schweitzer signed a bill nullifying federal gun laws). > > And since it is 100% legal, not some threat to the constitutional order . . . Nullification certainly is a threat to the constitutional order. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/123 "2014-05-05T21:05:59Z")
Darn right! Like those Republican governors who firmly refuse to admit Medicaid expansion to embrace the undeserving because freedom! I expect their less worthy citizens to stand up _en masse_ for their right to sicken and suffer in the name of rugged individualism! And don’t even start giving me shit about Jesus and compassion! Bull_shit!_ The Lord offered faith healing, by laying on of hands, none of this fancy-dancy “insurance” crap! And precisely that sort of medical practice is still entirely available, in tent revival meetings all across the country! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/124 "2014-05-06T15:51:32Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nullification certainly is a threat to the constitutional order. Although federal law trumps state law under the Supremacy Clause, the federal government is not the sole arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. Montana’s claim is simple: guns manufactured and sold only within Montana are not interstate commerce and thus the federal government has no authority over it. If the federal government wishes to challenge this assertion, they are free to ask the Supreme Court what they think. Given the court’s recent commerce clause jurisprudence plus their pro-2nd amendment majority, the administration would be nuts to challenge the Montana law. So they don’t. Which means the law is in effect and 100% legal. Although guess who is taking the law to court? Pro-gun groups, seeking to actually get federal gun laws struck down. It’s a stupid strategy and has been laughed out of every district court, and could get the state law struck down if they aren’t careful. But, as long as the federal government doesn’t go to court, the law stays on the books. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/125 "2014-05-06T15:56:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Although federal law trumps state law under the Supremacy Clause, the federal government is not the sole arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. Better read it a little more closely. > [@](#): > > Montana’s claim is simple: guns manufactured and sold only within Montana are not interstate commerce and thus the federal government has no authority over it. Yes, that’s their claim. But it’s not up to them to be the arbiter of it too. > [@](#): > > Given the court’s recent commerce clause jurisprudence plus their pro-2nd amendment majority, the administration would be nuts to challenge the Montana law. Better look into that a little more closely, too. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/126 "2014-05-06T16:02:34Z")
That issue aside, there are other, more indisputably legitimate ways for states to exercise their sovereignty: 1. Not take federal money for purposes of adding or expanding programs they don’t want. Medicaid is the most well known example, but Wyoming a few years ago toyed with the idea of not taking federal education funding so they could have total control over their education system. 2. Refuse cooperation. Even liberal states do this, mainly on immigration(sanctuary cities). States are not required to implement federal laws or regulations in any way whatsoever. It is entirely up to the federal government to enforce its laws. States(even liberal ones) are also starting to refuse to help the feds on marijuana law. Since the federal government is specifically forbidden a general police power, their ability to do ANYTHING domestically without state cooperation is severely limited. So states do actually control all the cards, and I’m glad to see Democrats now jumping on board the state sovereignty bandwagon as well. Anyway, before this turns into another thread, this is why, since Republicans already control the House, I feel that keeping their hold on the majority of state governments is more important than winning the Senate. I would actually consider it a defeat if a lot of Republican governors went down, even if the GOP won the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/127 "2014-05-06T16:05:39Z")
Oh, and Florida doesn’t count, since there are no Democrats in that race.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/128 "2014-05-06T16:32:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That issue aside Gee, I wonder why? > [@](#): > > there are other, more indisputably legitimate ways for states to exercise their sovereignty: None that do not require federal indulgence even to _exist_. That isn’t sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/129 "2014-05-06T17:05:14Z")
The federal government exists at the indulgence of the states, not vice versa. The states can disband the entire federal government simply by 37 of them calling for a convention and then agreeing to do so. The federal government does not have similar power over the states. While that’s obviously never going to happen, what can happen is for the states to call a constitutional convention and limit federal powers beyond the limits already established. There is no mechanism by which the federal government can reduce the power of the states. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/130 "2014-05-06T17:08:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The federal government exists at the indulgence of the states, not vice versa. That was settled in the landmark case of _Grant v. Lee_. 😉 > [@](#): > > The states can disband the entire federal government simply by 37 of them calling for a convention and then agreeing to do so. If that’s your proposal, good luck. 😉 > [@](#): > > The federal government does not have similar power over the states. Nor, having supremacy, does it need it. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/131 "2014-05-06T17:13:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That was settled in the landmark case of _Grant v. Lee_. 😉 No it was not. ALl Grant v. Lee settled was that a minority of states could not take their ball and go home if they didn’t like what the nation decided. Constitutional conventions are still legal, and if 37 states ratified a new Constitution I doubt you’d support the federal government attacking basically the whole country to protect itself from dissolution. > [@](#): > > Nor, having supremacy, does it need it. 😉 It has supremacy only in a few areas that the states delegated to it. And those can be taken away at any time. The concept of state sovereignty is not something crazy people made up. It’s the basis of our country and upheld by over 200 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The federal government works for the states and exists at the pleasure of the states, just as the EU exists at the pleasure of European states and has only those powers the states of Europe agree to delegate to it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/132 "2014-05-06T17:19:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > ALl Grant v. Lee settled was that a minority of states could not take their ball and go home if they didn’t like what the nation decided. What definition of “sovereignty” does that cover? 😉 > [@](#): > > Constitutional conventions are still legal Again, if _that’s_ what you have to resort to just to prop up your charmingly antebellum view of “state sovereignty” and its existence, good luck. 😉 > [@](#): > > and if 37 states ratified a new Constitution I doubt you’d support the federal government attacking basically the whole country to protect itself from dissolution. Don’t be ridiculous, **adaher**. Oh, wait, what am I saying? 😉 > [@](#): > > The concept of state sovereignty is not something crazy people made up. It’s the basis of our country and upheld by over 200 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Kindly review the supremacy clause, already noted by, well, you. And all the Supreme Court jurisprudence based on it and related concepts including incorporation, since you invoke that concept as well. There’s much more of it, you know. Or you \*should \*know. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/133 "2014-05-06T17:29:53Z")
If you want to get picky, btw, states cannot secede because of Texas v. White, although in reality that merely codified Grant v. Lee. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/134 "2014-05-06T17:34:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The concept of state sovereignty is not something crazy people made up. It’s the basis of our country and upheld by over 200 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The federal government works for the states and exists at the pleasure of the states . . . You won’t find either part of that in any Supreme Court jurisprudence. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/135 "2014-05-06T17:34:29Z")
The federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the states. Period. American Government 101. In those realms, it is supreme. Outside those realms, it has no power whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/136 "2014-05-06T17:35:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You won’t find either part of that in any Supreme Court jurisprudence. The sovereignty part you will. The last was just my own point, and it’s 100% true. The states pre-existed the federal government. They created it. They even preserved the ability to change it without DC’s participation. According to your logic, the states never had the right to revoke the Articles of Confederation and disband the federal government that the Articles created. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/137 "2014-05-06T17:37:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the states. Period. American Government 101. Check your calendar. It isn’t 1859 anymore. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/138 "2014-05-06T17:41:24Z")
Hmmm, you must have missed the dozens of laws the Supreme Court has struck down because the federal government had no power to pass them. Because if you’re arguing for an unlimited federal government, now THAT’s nutbar territory. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/139 "2014-05-06T17:59:40Z")
You no doubt were about to list a few of your favorite examples of some of these SC rulings upholding “state sovereignty” against the will of the federal government, weren’t you? 😉 For someone aware of the existence of the supremacy clause, and the commerce clause for that matter, it’s mighty odd not to have actually \*read \*either of them. Try it sometime. It’s also mighty odd for someone aware of the existence of the Articles of Confederation not to be aware that they did indeed codify state sovereignty in a voluntary federation. And that the resulting system was so hopeless the framers tossed it out entirely and started from scratch, this time with federal supremacy. Look into that history too sometime. It’s true - the Articles are no longer in effect, and neither is state sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960/140 "2014-05-06T18:14:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You no doubt were about to list a few of your favorite examples of some of these SC rulings upholding “state sovereignty” against the will of the federal government, weren’t you? 😉 THat’s easy. > **[National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius)** > > (2) The individual mandate constitutionally functions as a tax, so it is valid exercise of Congress's taxing power. > (3) Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into expanding Medicaid by threatening to revoke all federal Medicaid funding. > National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Aff... A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the Act, a significant expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk Another: > **[Printz v. United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States)** > > Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. > The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), Pub. L 90-618 and subsequent amendments established a detailed Federal program governing the distribution of firearms. The GCA prohibited firearms ownership by certain broad categories of individuals thought to po... Petitioners Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the Chief Law Enforcement Officers for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, represented by Stephen Halbrook and David T. Hardy respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s interim provisions. They objected to the use of congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law. * * * Scalia refers to the “dual sovereignty” established by the U.S. Constitution that federalism is built upon. His opinion states that the Framers designed the Constitution to allow Federal regulation of international and interstate matters, not internal matters reserved to the State Legislatures. The majority arrives at the conclusion that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends. > [@](#): > > It’s also mighty odd for someone aware of the existence of the Articles of Confederation not to be aware that they did indeed codify state sovereignty in a voluntary federation. And that the resulting system was so hopeless the framers tossed it out entirely and started from scratch, this time with federal supremacy. Look into that history too sometime. It’s true - the Articles are no longer in effect, and neither is state sovereignty. The states can throw out this federal government the same way they threw out the last one, and state sovereignty is a matter of law. You seem to imply that the Civil War repealed the 10th amendment. But that’s not law. The 10th amendment, by contrast, is law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-the-2014-midterms/677960.md?page=8)