Why Does The Federal Government Extort The States?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Ravenman *
On the second, I’m not comparing highways to civil rights.

I didn’t say you are. I’m saying that you’re saying that lucwarm is 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.

It’s not B that is being compared to D, but the relationship between A and B that is being compared to that of C to D.

I think highways are pretty damn well central to interstate commerce.

That’s not the issue. The issue is whether BAC of drivers is central to interstate commerce.

Fear Itself

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.

I don’t accept the idea that simply because the SCOTUS says something is Constitutional, that makes it so. And I most certainly do not accept the idea that because a law is Constitutional, one should not criticize it.

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?

Simply because it is unlikely that a repeal would pass, I hardly think that means that one must not wish for a repeal. I do not support or oppose positions based on the will of our representatives.

Do you not see the circularity of your argument?

No, I don’t, and I don’t think you understand what “circularity” means. As far as I can tell, your thinking seems to be that if this were repealed, then its elimination would be justified by the repeal, and this is a contradiction of my previous statement that the will of our representatives does not automatically make something the right thing to do (note that if this line of reasoning were valid, it would be a contradiction, not circularity). However, I already think that its elimination would be justified; a repeal would effect the elimination, not justify it.

To say that some laws are unjustified and therefore should not be enforced is a formula for chaos.

Sometimes chaos is preferable to tyrrany. But it this particular case, I did not and I do not call for civil disobedience. Just because I do not approve of this does not mean I don’t think it should not be enforced.

lucwarm: I think that you should try harder at disagreeing with people without making it into a personal issue.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by 2sense *
**lucwarm,

Ravenman has offered a definition that concerns governmental authority.**

I have no idea what your point is here. What definition of “sovereignty” does not concern governmental authority?

**

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.**

It’'s certainly possible that he made a very convenient mistake. But like I said, if it quacks like a weasel . . .

**

It seems to me that you are being unnecessarily confrontational and stubborn over what is most likely a misunderstanding on your part.**

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.

**So what definition of “sovereignty” are you using? **

I haven’t defined it as of yet. All I said was that it includes the right and power to legislate for the public good. I suppose that if you push me, I’ll try to come up with a definition. But I don’t think it’s really necessary. See, it won’t affect my basic point.

**

Why do you think the standard definition doesn’t fit this discussion? **

Assuming that the definition you offer is “standard,” the problem is that neither the United States nor the individual states have “ultimate authority over all matters.” Sovereignty is shared.

Let me ask you a question: Does the United States exercise sovereignty?

Under your definition, the answer is clearly “no.”

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**

lucwarm: I think that you should try harder at disagreeing with people without making it into a personal issue. **

I think it’s reasonable to point out when other folks are using debate tactics that are unfair or improper. But feel free to start a Pit thread on me.

[ricksummon]

For further argument, I quote Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissent in the above-mentioned case. While it’s true that only one other justice agreed with her, a well-written dissent can easily become a majority opinion for a future court.

When Congress appropriates money to build a highway, it is entitled to insist that the highway be a safe one. But it is not entitled to insist as a condition of the use of highway funds that the State impose or change regulations in other areas of the State’s social and economic life because of an attenuated or tangential relationship to highway use or safety. Indeed, if the rule were otherwise, the Congress could effectively regulate almost any area of a State’s social, political, or economic life on the theory that use of the interstate transportation system is somehow enhanced. If, for example, the United States were to condition highway moneys upon moving the state capital, I suppose it might argue that interstate transportation is facilitated by locating local governments in places easily accessible to interstate highways - or, conversely, that highways might become overburdened if they had to carry traffic to and from the state capital. In my mind, such a relationship is hardly more attenuated than the one which the Court finds supports 158. Cf. Tr. of Oral Arg. 39 (counsel for the United States conceding that to condition a grant upon adoption of a unicameral legislature would violate the “germaneness” requirement).

As discussed above, a condition that a State will raise its drinking age to 21 cannot fairly be said to be reasonably related to the expenditure of funds for highway construction. The only possible connection, highway safety, has nothing to do with how the funds Congress has appropriated are expended. Rather than a condition determining how federal highway money shall be expended, it is a regulation determining who shall be able to drink liquor. As such it is not justified by the spending power.

[Voodoochile]

Excellent, ricksummon.

I would add that it apparently isnt as clear cut as anyone here thinks.

Please note, the court left it open that it could have been considered compulsion rather than coercion depending on the amount of potential loss. So the court is playing a percentage game, leaving it for future courts apparently to decide at what percentage coercion becomes compulsion.

By inference, there is a point whereat the court would have ruled in the states favor. So, also by inference, the court is saying that no, the Feds dont have the right to compel states to enact laws of this kind, only that in this case its not compulsion. One area where I, and I think others here, disagree with the court is that the court seemingly considers compulsion to be a financial percentage higher than 5%.

As to my original point, again, was and is this: a danger to highway safety also lies in the governments refusal to finance highway maintenance.

What happened with this court decision, and what I dont agree with, is that the government in effect said we will threaten the safety of the roads in your area unless you pass these laws we want you to pass in order to comply with our responsibility to maintain the safety of the roads in your area. And the supreme court agreed that this made sense.

I think it was completely irresponsible of the court to not attempt to to at least discover which of the two, the withdrawal of funds or the raising of the drinking age, was more of a potential threat to highway safety. Instead, it relied on a percentage of income arguement, in effect saying the loss of 5% was not enough of a loss of funds to impair highway safety (which Im giving them the benefit of the doubt that thats what the 5% remark was about). I wonder if they had any engineers testify to that, or if they just kind of made it up.

So, thats the way it is, for now. But I disagree with it, and I think the attorney for the state didnt have his heart in it and argued far less abley than a monkey could have, if it tried. I dont think this decision settles the matter of states rights at all, whether in the larger context of the constitution or this context of highway safety; what I think is it largely reflects the ability or lack thereof of the attorney for the state. Unfortunately we’ll probably have to wait until a few of the court keel over before the court agrees to hear a related case again.

[Fear_Itself]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**I don’t accept the idea that simply because the SCOTUS says something is Constitutional, that makes it so. **

Now that’s certainly a unique point of view. If not SCOTUS, what in your opinion does establish the constitutionality of a law?

And I most certainly do not accept the idea that because a law is Constitutional, one should not criticize it.

If a law is upheld as constitutional, on what basis is your criticism founded? Personal expediency? You are certainly entitled to criticize what ever you please, but it you expect to sway the opinions of others, you should appeal a common authority that all can agree is the basis for judgement. Otherwise, your criticism is reduced to “I just don’t like it”.

[adaher]

**Now that’s certainly a unique point of view. If not SCOTUS, what in your opinion does establish the constitutionality of a law?
**

If it’s vague, I can understand it. But when the SCOTUS starts talking about things that are clearly NOT in the Constitution, such as “compelling interests”, that’s where I disagree.

Besides, SCOTUS rulings can be overturned. SCOTUS appointments are political in nature, I think that if the Court contained all William Rehnquists you wouldn’t be so sanguine about their permanent authority.

When you look at our history, the SCOTUS never was much as a guarantor of Constitutional rights. They’ve always been way to deferential to the other two branches. They failed to overturn the Alien and Sedition acts, they failed to deal with internment of Japanese-AMerican citizens. They have utterly failed to overturn the unconstitutional parts of the Patriot Act or to deal with the IRS and EPA, whose methods often violate the due process rights of Americans.

In the end, it has been Congress and the President that have done a better job of upholding the Constitution, although of course they aren’t that much better. In the first 150 years of our nation, Congress and the President routinely refused to pass legislation and debated the Constitutionality of whatever legislation was proposed. Nowadays, whether a law is unconstitutional or not rarely comes up for discussion. But even so, there are a few honorable men who do bring it up. Ron Paul and Barney Frank have often appealed to legislators to not vote for this or that legislation because it was unconstitional. And the Supreme Court certainly doesn’t care. They are all activist judges, just activists for their own political philosophies. The Constitution tends to be a rather low priority in their deliberative processes.

It’s time for us to elect a President who will appoint strict constructionists. Not GWB, who made that promise and then appointed conservative activist judges.

[2sense]

lucwarm,

I don’t have a definition because I don’t have a horse in this race. I was just trying to help by clearing up a small problem that had developed. It seems that I am not being helpful so I will fade away and leave it to Ravenman or others to point out your errors.

As it happens though it is possible to maintain that a single ultimate authority does exist in the US. In A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government Garry Wills argues that it resides in the Congress because it has the final say on any question by statute and, if necessary, by impeaching any executive or judicial officials that don’t go along with its decision.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by 2sense *
**lucwarm,

I don’t have a definition because I don’t have a horse in this race. I was just trying to help by clearing up a small problem that had developed. It seems that I am not being helpful so I will fade away and leave it to Ravenman or others to point out your errors. **

Nice face-saving exit there.

**As it happens though it is possible to maintain that a single ultimate authority does exist in the US. In A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government Garry Wills argues that it resides in the Congress because it has the final say on any question by statute and, if necessary, by impeaching any executive or judicial officials that don’t go along with its decision. **

Can Congress impeach and remove the governor of New Jersey?

Or to borrow an idea from ricksummon’s quote, can Congress pass a statute moving the capital of New Jersey from Trenton to Newark?

[adaher]

They haven’t tried. Although of course it’s only speculation, I would be willing to bet that they could legislate both of those things.

But, even if they couldn’t, that’s not much comfort. Do the states have any substantive power that the federal government can’t intrude on? Sure, they can’t take out a governor that we elect, but what good is that if the governor doesn’t have any real power? And although it’s nice that they can’t take our capitals from us, how important is that?

What I want to know is, what real power do states have that the federal government can’t intrude on?

Back to what we were talking about, although Congress can’t technically impeach a governor, the federal government will use military force to impose it’s authority over the states and has done so on at least one occasion. Fortunately in the one example it was justifiable to uphold the 14th amendment, but they appear ready to use force to prevent states from legalizing medical marijuana. I don’t mean an invasion, but perhaps arresting the governor.

[Ravenman]

*Originally posted by lucwarm *
**Disagree. Here’s what happened:
(snip)
That’s classic weaseling in my book. **

Why must this resort to name-calling? Look, I have heard and used the word sovereignty used a million times in my academic and professional career, and never once had I ever heard it used to refer to anything but a nation-state with the characteristics I described above.

In fact, if you’re so interested in this point, when I saw you use the term “state sovereignty” (or whatever it was), my eyes just about popped out because it seemed so out of line with how I have ever used or understood the word “sovereignty” to mean, that it immediately sounded like Montana Militia mumbo-jumbo. I thought that was awful strange, so I actually went and looked it up on dictionary.com: the definitions offered fit my understanding of the word, as described above.

This weekend, I stopped by a Barnes and Noble and looked in a Black’s Law Dictionary. It, too, offered a very similar definition. I tried looking up state sovereignty: at the moment, I am unable to recall if the definition repeated that of sovereignty, or if it said “see sovereignty,” but there was no new information related.

And just 10 minutes ago, after reading the updates in this thread, I Googled “soverignty” and “supreme court.” After a bit of hunting, I found that the Supreme Court does, in fact, use the term “state sovereignty” in its decisions. As I posted several days ago, I am not a lawyer, and had no idea that this term could be used to refer to the division of powers within a federal system of government. Thank you, lucwarm, for taking the time to call my argument weaseling. It has resulted in me learning something new today.

With that, I formally concede defeat on the matter of state sovereignty: you win, I lose.

As for the larger matter at hand, I was actually trying to pursue a reasoned, if somewhat spirited, discussion. Seeing more heat than light being generated, I will take my quacking weasel somewhere else.

[The_Ryan]

Fear Itself

Now that’s certainly a unique point of view. If not SCOTUS, what in your opinion does establish the constitutionality of a law?

That would the Constitution, of course.

If a law is upheld as constitutional, on what basis is your criticism founded?

I believe that I have already presented arguments against it.

You are certainly entitled to criticize what ever you please, but it you expect to sway the opinions of others, you should appeal a common authority that all can agree is the basis for judgement. Otherwise, your criticism is reduced to “I just don’t like it”.

That’s odd, appeal to authority is usually considered a fallacy around here. It seems to me that laws should be evaluated on their own merits, not on the basis of whether someone else likes them.

[Fear_Itself]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
That would the Constitution, of course.

There you go again with your circular reasoning. You are basing your argument on the Constitution, which is the very crux of the debate. You can’t swing a cat without hitting two people that disagree about what it says with regard to the relationship between federal and state governments. To say you base you arguments on the Constitution is to assume that your interpretation is correct, and all others are not. That may work on a message board, but in the real world, there has to be a final authority that settles it. That authority is the Supreme Court.

I believe that I have already presented arguments against it.

And as near as I can tell, that argument is, “I just don’t like it.”

**That’s odd, appeal to authority is usually considered a fallacy around here. It seems to me that laws should be evaluated on their own merits, not on the basis of whether someone else likes them. **

Sophistry and semantics. Laws that are left to individuals to evaluate are worthless. You and I obviously cannot agree on an interpretation of the Constitution, but at least you are alone in believing that SCOTUS does not have a Constutional mandate to settle disageeements like this.

[lucwarm]

Why must this resort to name-calling?

I think that “name-calling” is a bit of an overstatement, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

Look, I have heard and used the word sovereignty used a million times in my academic and professional career, and never once had I ever heard it used to refer to anything but a nation-state with the characteristics I described above.

Keep in mind that under your definition, the United States is NOT a sovereign nation.

With that, I formally concede defeat on the matter of state sovereignty: you win, I lose.

ok, thanks!!

---

Laws that are left to individuals to evaluate are worthless. You and I obviously cannot agree on an interpretation of the Constitution, but at least you are alone in believing that SCOTUS does not have a Constutional mandate to settle disageeements like this.

It seems reasonable to me for people to be able to argue that the Supreme Court got something wrong. That a decision was poorly reasoned; or illogical; or unfair; or contrary to precedent; or contrary to the spirit of the Constitution; etc.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be arguing that the Supreme Court is essentially infallible.

[2sense]

*Originally posted by lucwarm *
Nice face-saving exit there.

Thanks though I’m not sure why I would need to save face. I interjected myself into your dispute, fruitlessly it seems and so leaving seemed the thing to do. For my part there was no ego on the line. Besides, what face do I have to save? I am not one of the more reputable posters. I take unpopular positions and stubbornly argue them to annoying lengths even when the point isn’t germaine to the discussion at hand. What does it matter if I get egg on my face? I come and go and no one seems to notice much.
( Are those violins I hear in the background? )

Can Congress impeach and remove the governor of New Jersey?

Yes. Clearly it would have to be an extreme case but they have the tools to do it. They could just pass a law impeaching a governor and then impeach any federal judge that tried to rule the act unconstitutional or any member of the executive branch that refused to enforce it.

[Fear_Itself]

*Originally posted by lucwarm *
**Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be arguing that the Supreme Court is essentially infallible. **

For all practical purposes, with respect to interpreting the Constitution, they are. Until such time as a subsequent Supreme Court overturns a previous ruling (rare), or an amendment to the Constitution is ratified by the states (rarer still, these days), a SCOTUS decision determines what is, or is not, Constitutional. You may disagree with it, but not on Constitutional grounds. By definition, they are the final word.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by 2sense *
Thanks though I’m not sure why I would need to save face.

For one thing, because it emerged that your argument requires the conclusion that the United States is not a sovereign nation.

**

Clearly it would have to be an extreme case but they have the tools to do it. They could just pass a law impeaching a governor and then impeach any federal judge that tried to rule the act unconstitutional or any member of the executive branch that refused to enforce it. **

Following this reasoning, most of the world’s nations are not sovereign, since the United States could, in theory, impose its will upon them and have ultimate authority.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by Fear Itself *
**For all practical purposes, with respect to interpreting the Constitution, they are. Until such time as a subsequent Supreme Court overturns a previous ruling (rare), or an amendment to the Constitution is ratified by the states (rarer still, these days), a SCOTUS decision determines what is, or is not, Constitutional. You may disagree with it, but not on Constitutional grounds. By definition, they are the final word. **

For what it’s worth, I think it’s possible for the Supremes to be wrong in the senses I described earlier – illogical; irrational; unfair; against the spirit of the Constitution; against any reasonable reading of the Constitution; against precedent; etc.

In any event, I think that your position is a bit of a cop-out. When somebody criticizes a federal law that seems to circumvent the Constitution, but has been blessed by the Court, it seems to be pretty obvious that they are arguing that the law is wrong in one or more of the senses described above. The fact that the law is technically Constitutional because the Supremes have greenlighted it doesn’t really rebut such an argument.

[2sense]

*Originally posted by lucwarm *
For one thing, because it emerged that your argument requires the conclusion that the United States is not a sovereign nation.

What argument and how so?

**Following this reasoning, most of the world’s nations are not sovereign, since the United States could, in theory, impose its will upon them and have ultimate authority. **

Not so. There is a difference between authority and might. This thread is about governmental authority, remember? Sure the US could impose its will on say, Canada but it has no legal right to do so. In my example, OTOH, legal authority does reside in the federal government. It is the federal judiciary which decides constitutionality and the federal executive is authorized to enforce the Constitution within the states. Both of those branches of the federal government can be controlled by the legislative branch, as I have said, via statute and impeachment.

[Zoe]

Would the name the Clump of States of America have suited some of you better?