Tramp. We realize that it is expensive to build and upkeep a highway system. What we’re debating is States’ Rights, and why the Federal Government is allowed to extort the states using the highway.
TaxGuy, I don’t think that’s quite it. You’re describing it as a bribe, but that’s not what’s going on. The Feds are threatening a fine, not offering a bribe. The Feds are saying, “State, the formula we use for distributing highway funds to the States says you should get (whatever amount). We will give you all the money you’re supposed to get, if you follow our orders in regard to (drinking age, speed limit, or whatever). If you don’t pass the law we’re ordering you to pass, we will reduce the amount of highway fund money we give you.”
The end result is that the decisions in question (drinking age, seatbelts, whatever) are being made at the Federal level.
By the way, great quiz, ME Bruckner! I guess it really was about slavery. Wonder why people claim otherwise? Did the people of the States of the Confederacy eventually come to be embarassed about having gone to war to defend something as unsavory as slavery, and make up a story about the war having been about something else?
But re States’ rights, why didn’t (and why don’t) the States have the right to seceed? When arguments crop up about the Electoral College, people justify the way it gives more say in Presidential elections to small and/or rural States by saying, among other things, that we are not a just plain regular country, we’re a union of separate States. If that’s really the case, shouldn’t each State have the right to leave the Union if it so chooses?
Yes, that’s it. Very well put.
OK, if, in your opinion, some laws derived from representative government are not justified, the appropriate recourse is for a state to sue the federal government for the money, and let SCOTUS decide. Oops, that already happened, and guess what the result was:
So, do you also think the SCOTUS decision is unjustified? We have a law, passed by Congess, signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court. How is there even any discussion about its legitamacy?
What do you propose to do? Repeal the law? If so, on what basis would the repeal be based, if not the collective will of our elected representatives, the same ones whose laws were unjustified in the first place? Do you not see the circularity of your argument?
For better or worse, representative government is the best system we have been able to come up with. To say that some laws are unjustified and therefore should not be enforced is a formula for chaos. Laws are determined to be justified by the Courts, not the will of a minority of citizens.
Quite right on the first, it was a long day at work. 
On the second, I’m not comparing highways to civil rights. I think you’re saying that as A is to B, ifcarried to an absurd conclusion, is tantamount to C is to D. I’m saying that there is no way to compare or equate B with D.
Article I, Sections 8 and 9 specifically give Congress the power to write laws relating to interstate commerce and the use of appropriated funds, and has been mentioned elsewhere, the Supreme Court has held by a 7-2 margin that putting reasonable conditions on the use of funds is not unconstitutional, so long as the conditions are not unduly punative or would violate any constitutional rights. The ability of Congress to make laws in this area is well founded, and a good thing.
I think highways are pretty damn well central to interstate commerce. Congress is right to be concerned about drunk people driving on our highways, especially if they are being maintained with federal money.
There not extorting the states.
If Texas wants to let drunks control the roads, it is there right to do so. There is no federal law saying your BAC needs to be .08.
But Texas cannot get the federal highway money without lowering the BAC. How is that extortion??? Can Texas take the highway money and spend it on education? Nope. There are restrictions on what you can do with the money you get from the feds. If there wasn’t it would be a free for all.
There’s no way to put this politely: you’re dead wrong.
You might ask yourself – if states do not exercise sovereignty, why does the federal government need to do this whole dodge with highway funds? Why not simply pass a law changing the legal limit in New Jersey from 0.10 to 0.08?
Correct, and the remainder is reserved to the states or to the people.
And state sovereignty is specifically protected by the Constitution too.
**
There isn’t, and that’s the whole point of this debate. Should the federal government be able to use its powers to do indirectly something that it cannot do directly?
Is it an appropriate use of federal funds to create an interstate highway system to provide a robust and rapid transportation network to promote both interstate commerce and national defense?
If it is, then this will almost necessarily involve a redistribution of tax dollars from certain states to other states, as it would be unreasonable to ask (for example) Wyoming to pick up the full tab for its interstate highways (which benefit the entire country to some extent) when it has ~550 residents per mile of interstate while at the other end of the spectrum Tennessee has 27000 residents per mile of interstate. If you think that this concept of spending Connecticut money to build interstate highways in Kansas or Maine is unacceptable just move on to the next post.
If we are still in agreement, is it reasonable for the Federal Government to handle most of the details of road building, law enforcement, and maintenance of the roads it is paying for through the states? I would think that this would be preferable than an all encompassing federal agency. If it works through the states, is it still reasonable for the government to set guidelines to the states for how those roads are constructed - drainage, width, curve radii, maximum gradient, load ratings, right of way, future expandability? I think that in order to serve the aforementioned purposes these are perfectly reasonable requirements.
Now the question goes to is it reasonable for the Federal Government to mandate within limits how those roads are used? Certainly no one objects to laws forbidding explosives in tunnels for example.
But what about marginal cases - such as maximum speed or BAC mentioned above, where a case can be made that BAC and excessive speed can have a slight deleterious effect on a road’s ability to serve its purposes for reason of increased maintenance from higher speeds or decreased access to the road due to accidents rendering it partly closed? Why should the federal government not apply a slight disincentive to the state for doing its own thing. The federal highway money is already stretched, and probably has a dozen projects not moving forward for want of money. If the federal government feels it can get a better payoff by putting its money in a different project it would be wasting the taxpayers’ money not to.
My understanding is that the 0.08 limit will apply on all roads, not just highways. (Feel free to correct me!)
In any event, there is a distinction between arguing over what is the best policy and what should be permissible under the Constitution.
Fine. Let’s define our terms. The field I work in, foreign policy, uses sovereignty to mean ultimate authority over all matters. Sovereignty is like carrying a fetus: you have it or you don’t. States may exercise final authority on some issues, but that does not sovereignty make.
Alright. Let me see if I understand the core of your argument. (Feel free to correct, I’m not trying to misrepresent your position.) The Constitution gives the Federal government certain powers, and leaves to the states everything else. Where there is a conflict between the fringes of the Federal government’s expressed authority and the (implied) powers delegated to the states (this being a catch-all, rather than a specific list of powers), the benefit of the doubt should go to the states. Am I off-base here?
I think this question can be answered with the Golden Rule.
“He who has the gold makes the rules”
They do it because they can.
Just as a curious aside, I just noticed that the opinion in the Dole case was joined by the justices most associated with strict constructionism, like Rehnquist and Scalia. And the two dissenters on that case, which related to the sale of liquor, dissented because the 21st Amendment gave the states power to regulate liquor sales.
O’Connor, in her dissenting opinion, went so far as to say, “My disagreement with the Court is relatively narrow on the spending power issue: it is a disagreement about the application of a principle rather than a disagreement on the principle itself. I agree with the Court that Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds to further “the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.””
Please don’t weasel. When I referred to state sovereignty, it was clear that I wasn’t trying to say that states had or should have ultimate authority over all matters.
**
You missed the boat completely.
I’ll say it one more time. Here is my “core” position: It . . . is . . . troubling . . . when . . . the . . . federal . . . government . . . does . . . indirectly . . . that . . . which . . . it . . . cannot . . . do . . . directly.
Ravenman is doing the opposite of weaseling. He is attempting to clarify rather than obscure.
Sovereignty is a tricky concept. The definition he has offered is the standard one though the word is not often used in that manner here in the US. You might notice that some governmental terminology is used differently here than in the rest of the English-speaking world. Internationally a “state” refers to a nation and “federal” to a union of independent nations. That is not the case here and unsurprisingly to those who are familiar with me I am about to blame this all on the Founders.
If they had been honest about what they were doing ( creating a national government rather than a federal one ) then none of this confusion would be necessary. You see it was a truism at the time that sovereignty couldn’t be divided. It was believed there must be one ultimate authority because if there were more than one they would destroy everything in a battle for supremacy. Rather than meeting the accusation that they had divided sovereignty honestly the Founders instead dodged the issue by claiming that there was no division: the people had been and would remain sovereign. The concept of “popular sovereignty” thus was thrust forth to plague the understanding of generations of Americans. Of course the idea that all political power comes from the people doesn’t address the belief that that authority, if vested in more than one unsubordinated governmental body, will tear a nation apart.
Our civil war nonwithstanding, a look at the subsequent history of this nation shows that while a certain amount of conflict does arise from divided soveriegnty, a balance can be maintained. Human nature is not as dark as the Founders believed.
The idea is that the federal government has sovereignty over some areas, while others are left to states, and still others to individuals.
Disagree. Here’s what happened:
(1) I made a claim – that the federal government was eroding state sovereignty, in essence by interfering with states’ powers and rights to legislate for the public good.
(2) Ravenmen claims that states do not exercise sovereignty.
(3) I point out that he’s wrong - if he were right, there would be no need for the federal government to use the highway fund technique to get its way.
(4) He offers a definition of “sovereignty” that rescues his claim but clearly was not what I was talking about when I made my claim.
That’s classic weaseling in my book.
**
Perhaps, but in case you haven’t noticed, this whole thread is premised on the relationship between the US federal government and the US states. So if somebody who gets caught saying something incorrect claims he was actually talking about something else, I’m a little skeptical.
You are overlooking a couple facts. Ravenman is the one that gave a definition and he hasn’t produced some obscure possible meaning. That is the standard definition. If you meant something else then you could offer your own definition instead of jumping to the conclusion that he is attempting to deceive.
I’m not overlooking that at all.
I used the word “sovereignty.” He was free to ask me for a definition but instead offered a definition that clearly doesn’t apply to this discussion. He did so after the fact, too. Looks like a weasel; walks like a weasel; quacks like a weasel.
lucwarm,
Ravenman has offered a definition that concerns governmental authority. What seems clear to me is that that definition isn’t inapplicable to a discussion of governmental authority. What isn’t clear is why you are so quick to attack him. You have no call to accuse him of foul play. Even if you were right that his interpretation of the word didn’t fit the discussion there is no evidence that he was intentionally using an inappropriate definition. Defining terms once it appears that people may be using different meanings isn’t a sign of dishonesty, that’s how it usually works. No one is going to accuse you of anything for using almost 40 undefined words in your last post. It seems to me that you are being unnecessarily confrontational and stubborn over what is most likely a misunderstanding on your part.
So what definition of “sovereignty” are you using?
Why do you think the standard definition doesn’t fit this discussion?
Basically, if a state is too dopy to pass laws that protect it’s citizens, then the Federal Gov’t needs to step in.