Why Does The Federal Government Extort The States?

Great Debates
101

I think we have to differentiate between a debate between individuals, and a legal challenge to a law that is argued before SCOTUS. Between the two of us, we can argue till we are blue in the face about the constututionality of a fine point of the law, and never reach a conclusion. That is because we are each arguing from our own opinions, without a standard by which to determine the more valid viewpoint. But when a case is argued before the Supreme Court, it is with the assumption that the Justices will give an impartial judgement. Not totally impartial, mind you, for they are only human; but as unbiased as can be found in the land, and certainly more objective than you or I can ever be. We as a nation have agreed that the Supremes are the arbiters that can dispassionately consider the evidence and arguments, and render a conclusion based on the Constitution.

I respectfully disagree; your personal opinion (or mine for that matter) has little bearing on a legal finding of constitutionality. At some point we have to accept some authority to lend a sense of the absolute to our system of laws, or else we simply let every one do what ever their conscience dictates, and that would be chaos.

102

Congress could, in theory, pass a law giving itself the legal right to impose its will upon Canada.

And note that Congress has no legal right to remove the governor of New Jersey.

103

Last time I checked, this was the Straight Dope Message Board - not the Supreme Court.

**

True, but I never claimed that it did. Conversely, if the Supreme Court upholds a law, it does not necessarily follow that that law is logical, rational, fair, consistent with precedent, etc.

**

Is anyone here claiming otherwise?

104

lucwarm,

Excuse me. I read your reply but didn’t see an answer to my question. Which argument of mine “requires the conclusion that the United States is not a sovereign nation” and how does it do so?

It is the Congress of the United States, not the United World. Jersey is one of those states, Canada is not.

Disputes over the rights of the federal vs the state governments are resolved by the federal government. I believe I have already shown how the Congress can control the rest of the feds. Note the difference between Jersey and Canada. The later has never agreed to the authority of the US federal goverment.

105

You claimed that the “standard” definition of sovereignty requires “ultimate authority” over all things.

The federal government does not have ultimate authority over all things, even according to the Supreme Court. Ergo, the United States is not sovereign by what you claim as the “standard” definition.

When I pointed this out to you, you backed away from the definition and indicated you did not want to participate in the discussion any more.

**

Doesn’t matter. There’s nothing stopping Congress from enacting a statute declaring Canada to be subject to its authority.

**

New Jersey did NOT agree that the federal government would have ultimate authority over all things.

106

What’s with scare-quoting “standard”? That is the standard definition. If you don’t know what the words you are using mean then you can look them up easily enough.

Ah, I see your mistake now. You have confused the United States with the federal government. Whether or not the federal government is sovereign doesn’t affect national sovereignty. The USA is a sovereign nation. We retain all authority over ourselves unlike the European Union countries, for instance, which delegate sovereign powers to the EU.

Hopefully you now see that I haven’t backed away from the definition. **

Again you are confusing means with authority. When my neighbor leaves for the weekend there is nothing to stop me from going into his backyard and digging a big hole. That doesn’t mean I am authorized to do so. Clear? **

Actually, that turns out not to be the case. ( See? There is a polite way of telling someone they are dead wrong rather than just blurting it out. ) New Jersey certainly didn’t know they were doing so. But under the Constitution federal/state disputes are solved by the federal judiciary which is part of the federal government of course. So in effect Jersey did put themselves fully into the hands of the federal government because any disagreement between the the 2 would be decided by the central government.

I feel that I should point out here that the argument that the sovereignty of the United States rests in the Congress is just that: an argument. I offered Garry Wills’ argument because it seemed appropriate. Personally I believe that sovereignty is divided between the states and the federal government. Just to be clear.

107

You are absolutely right. But it does mean that it is Constitutional, and any argument to the contrary boils down to, “I just don’t like it”. I have seen no other basis to your arguments.

108

I’m skeptical, but don’t feel like researching the point. Thus the quotes.

**

By your definition, is the European Union a sovereign entity? What about the G-7? Why not?

**

Look, here’s what you said earlier:

Sounds like backing away to me.

**

No, you are the one who is confused. Try answering the following questions:

(1) Where does the federal government get its authority?

(2) Who determines the limits of that authority?

(3) And what’s to stop the federal government from expanding that authority to include Canada?

**

What’s to stop the U.S. Supreme Court from issuing an opinion holding that by entering into the NAFTA treaty, Canada fully subjected itself to the authority of the United States?

109

If I argue that a law is illogical, or irrational, or unfair, or violates the spirit of the Constitution, it seems like a bit of a leap to say that I’m basically arguing “I just don’t like it.”

By your logic, the vast majority of arguments in this world boil down to “I just don’t like it.”

110

OK, look at it this way. We are talking about whether or not a law is constitutional. lucwarm reads the Constitution and expresses an opinion it is not; SCOTUS considers arguments, testimony and evidence, and issues an opinion that it is. Who is a reasonable man most likely to agree with? It doesn’t mean you can’t have a contrary opinion, it is just that it not very persuasive when stacked up against the Supremes. I didn’t agree with the SCOTUS decision on the 2000 election, but even I realize it is pointless to argue it on constitutional grounds.

Nope. Only the ones regarding constitution issues that contradict the Supreme Court.

111

That’s a different argument from the one you made before. It’s one thing to say that the Supreme Court by definition cannot be wrong about Constitutionality. It’s another thing to say that the Supreme Court is worthy of more deference. The latter is an argument from authority.
**

I’m not sure what your point is here – you’ve already conceded that the mere fact that the Supremes have ruled a law Constitutional doesn’t imply that the law is rational, logical, fair etc.

Thus, if I argue that a law is NOT rational, logical, fair etc., I am not necessarily contradicting any Supreme Court decision.

So your qualifier would seem to exclude the very type of argument you earlier claimed boils down to “I just don’t like it.”

112

You don’t take the time to understand the words that come out of your mouth because you don’t feel like it? I’m not trying to misrepresent you here just to understand. Is that really what you are saying?

This is the entirety of your reply? To ask questions about my example? How about addressing the substance of my post? Am I right that you made an error?

As for me, I think that Europe is now more like the US. They have divided their sovereignty. I’m not sure about the G7. What has that to do with anything?

I state that a definition offered by Ravenman, and understood by those who do understand the word “sovereignty” to be the standard definition, is not mine and give my reasoning for posting and you take that to mean that I am backing away. What would lead you to that conclusion?

(1) The People via the Constitution.

(2) The federal courts.

(3) The fact that Canada never ratified the Constitution.

That was easy. What isn’t so simple to understand is why you think it confuses me.

** Nothing. They certainly have the means to do so. But not the authority. As I have been trying to help you understand that isn’t the same thing.

113

You aren’t defending your previous accusation of circular reasoning, but are instead jumping to yet another accusation. Can you defend this one, or will you simply jump to another? What is circular about my reasoning? Can you cite a single post of mine in which I claim that I have proven that the Consitution is the standard, and in which that claim is a basis for my proof? Do you understand what circular reasoning is? Or does it boil down, for you, to “I just don’t like it”?

That’s completely irrelevant. “Artistic” is something which follows the aesthetics of art. The fact that people disagree about what those are doesn’t mean that this isn’t what “artistic” means, and it certainly doesn’t mean that you can now make up your own definition for what “articstic” means.

No, to say that I base my arguments on the Constitution is to say that I base my arguments on the Constitution, and to assume that my interpretation is correct is to assume that my interpretation is correct. I find simply declaring holding a postion to be engaging in some activity to be a rather dishonest tactic. “To assert that the SCOTUS is the final word on Constitutionality is to torture little kittens and watch them die for the fun of it”. How do you like it?

Why? Why can’t there simply be different ideas? Must everyone agree with everyone else? Can you think of any argument against it that does boil down to “I just don’t like it”?

Well, duh. Of course it is. And your argument is “I just like it”. There is no argument that can be made for or against any law that does not come down to preferences. If I prove that a particular law will cause the destruction of civilization as we know it, and a thousand years of misery will follow, one could ask “so what?” And the only answer I could give is that when it comes to a thousand years of misery “I don’t like it”.

:confused:
That’s the best you could come up with? My first statement is a fact. There is nothing sophist or semantic about it (well, okay, there is, but not in the deragatory sense you mean; “sophist” means “wise”, and “semantic” means “meaningful”. For some reason those words are used as insults). My second statement is a statement about my preferences. So really, two statements about fact. Nothing deceptive or misleading about them.

Well, even if that’s true, so what? Do you not like worthless laws? Gee, you wouldn’t be arguing on the basis of “I don’t like that”, would you?

Fact is, all laws are left to individuals to evaluate. Whether or not you like that it quite irrelevant to whether it’s true. You sound like a religious apologist, talking about the absolute authority of the SCOTUS. Like them, you want to convince people to accept your value judgements by convincing that there is no judgement to be made; the decision has already been made by the higher power. But no matter what the higher power decides, our decision to accept or reject that is our own, and to pretend that we had no choice is moral cowardice. By even presenting an argument, you are conceding defeat. The fact that there is even a single person disputing the high and mighty SCOTUS shows that they do not magically create consensus, and the fact that you are trying to presuade me to accept the SCOTUS’ judgement shows that there is a choice, and that it is debatable as to whether the SCOTUS is right.

I find it hard to believe that you are really that naive. Oh, and speaking about circular reasoning, how’s that one, hmmmm? How do you know the SCOTUS has a Constitutional mandate to settle disagreements? Why, they said so of course! And how do we know they’re right? Because they have a Constitutional mandate to make such decisions. How could I possibly disagree with such logic.

By what definition? Certainly not by this one.

Isn’t the legitimacy of popular rule at the crux of this debate, and isn’t this by your own reasoning circular? And if we as a nation have decided that juries decide questions of fact, does that mean that anyone who is convicted of a crime is by definition guilty, regardless of whether he did it? If I were to say that I think that his actual guilt is the crucial factor, would you accuse me of assuming myself to be the sole arbiter of guilt?

But everyone does do what their conscience dictates. If someone does something because that’s what the law says, it’s only because their conscience dictates that they follow the law that the law matters. If following one’s conscience leads to chaos, then we are already there. And perhaps the fact that you would think this says something about what sort of conscience you have, if you think following one’s conscience would lead to chaos.

114

Umm, I wasn’t the one who made a claim about what the “standard” definition of sovereignty was. That was you and Ravenman.

**

The thing is, your position doesn’t make a lot of sense to me and if I address what I think you might be trying to say, it will lead to a lot of confusion. Easier to simply ask questions about your position to show that it doesn’t make sense.

I suppose I could try to address your point head-on if you explain it a little better. What do you mean when you suggest that the United States has ultimate authority over all things, but not the federal government?

**

That’s not really an answer. Is the European Union a sovereign entity or not?

**

It seems to me that your definition might imply that the G7 is a sovereign entity. Does the G7 have “ultimate authority” over “all things”? If not, why not?

**

Yes. You kind of endorsed the definition then stated you didn’t have a horse in the race or something like that. Backing away.

You admit yourself that the federal courts determine the limits of the Constitution. If 2sense claims that Canada never ratified the Constitution and the federal courts claim that Canada did ratify the Constitution, guess who wins?

**

For one thing, you seem to think that you are the final arbiter of who did and didn’t ratify the Constitution.

**

Who determines the limits of the Supreme Court’s authority? (I’ll give you a hint: it ain’t you)

115

No one said you did. What I asked was if you don’t feel like taking the time to understand the words that come out of your mouth. You used the word “sovereignty” and then claimed you were skeptical about a definition of the word but didn’t feel like researching it. So to restate: do you use words without bothering to figure out what they mean beforehand? **

How about instead of trying to imagine what I might be saying, you just address what I do say? In this case I wasn’t asserting anything. I was asking you questions. I’ll repeat them for your convenience along with the suggestion that you take them at face value and the hope that you will be able to actually answer them this time.

This is the entirety of your reply?
To ask questions about my example?
How about addressing the substance of my post?
Am I right that you made an error? **

I made no such suggestion. I am differentiating the 2. The federal government isn’t the United States. They aren’t the same. Therefor just because the federal government isn’t sovereign that doesn’t mean that the USA is not. **

Yes. It became one when European nations invested sovereign powers in it. **

When I said that I don’t know about the G7 I meant that I don’t know about the G7. I don’t know what powers the organization has. It does seems very very very unlikely that they would have authority over all things but I haven’t read their charter.

I note here that I think that these questions are more likely to cause confusion and that it would be easier to ignore them but I haven’t. I am willing to give you a chance to present your case. **

I still don’t understand what led you to this conclusion. To repeat, I stated that a commonly understood definition that I didn’t give wasn’t mine and I gave my reasons for posting. Somehow you seem to have connected that together to reach your erroneous conclusion that I was backing away from the commonly understood definition. Can you explain your reasoning any better? **

** Wins what exactly? Can I stop them from making and pursuing the claim? No. They have the means to do so. But if they did I would be right and they would be wrong.**

The federal government. The Court determines much of its own authority ( see Marbury v Madison for example ) but a lot of it is by statute which means the Congress. You are right though, I have no say. But really now, this is silly. Do you actually believe that Canada ratified the US Constitution? Because if not it is disinegnuous to argue that the Court has authority over that nation.

116

It seems to me that there is a fundamental problem that has only been mildly addressed, and that’s the matter of whose money it actually is. The belief is that it’s federal money, the counter is that there is no such thing, and of course the next counter is that the people voted to give that money to the feds. And here’s where the problem comes in.

The fundamental tenet of the Declaration of Independence was that just governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. So the governed may consent to have their money appropriated by the government. However, the only member of the public that has any intrinsic claim on my property is myself. It would be fallacy to say that any other member of the public could ‘consent’ to have my money taken. That isn’t consent; it’s thievery by census.

Of course, I’m of the opinion that all states should simply categorically reject all money ‘offered’ by the federal government, and learn to live within their means. Then, I also believe that the first, best step to take upon becoming governor would be to tell the citizens of my State to stop paying their federal income taxes.

Natch…

117

Urgh, I was on page 1 when I typed all of that, so it might be useless at this point in the debate…

118

Philo,

Good post. I’ve been following the debate so far, but I think that you got it back on track. I see that you are new. Welcome.

The subject of this post is something that I’ve been thinking about for awhile now, crafting it in my head for years, waiting for the proper opportunity.

Something about this subject that I cannot wrap by brain around is the authority of the federal government to take my taxes, and make it illegal for me to refuse. I’m not talking about repealing the federal income tax. I, if anyone, realizes the importance of good roads, the military, grants, welfare, and scholarships and the like. So there has to be some sort of tax to support the preservation of the Union.

You mentioned that if you were Governor of your state, you would encourage your citizens to stop paying federal income taxes. This statement alone was enough to make me jump back into the thread.

I need more information from someone who is in the know.

What authority granted to the IRS requires me to file yearly income taxes?

What is the maximum penalty for not doing so?

What, besides encouragement to the citizens and refusing the money, can the state legislatures do to redirect the funds directly to the state?

As the Greenies say, I guess I have to “Think Globally, Act Locally.”

119

Umm, I was skeptical that your definition is the “standard” one. Thus my quotes – to emphasize that I’m using YOUR words NOT mine.

**

Sometimes, yes. For example here, I don’t care to verify your claim about what the “standard” definition is. Such research is not necessary to show the flaws in your argument.

**

The trouble is that what you did say doesn’t make much sense. You claimed, in essence, that the “United States” has “ultimate authority” over “all things” but that the federal government does not have such authority. I don’t understand the distinction you are trying to draw.

When you claim that the “United States” has “ultimate authority” over “all things,” what person or agency exercises such authority?

Yes.

**

Yes, as I explained, it’s easier to ask questions. But I’ll try to address the substance of your post if you explain to me (perhaps with examples) how the “United States” exercises “ultimate authority” over “all things.”

**

I don’t think so, but I don’t really understand the distinction you have attempted to draw.

Please give me examples of the “United States” exercising “ultimate authority.”

**

I’m not talking about the organization. I’m taking about the group of nations commonly referred to as the G-7. (You seem to think this is an important distinction.)

And guess what? Congress does not have the authority to remove the governor of New Jersey. As you explained, Congress has the means to do so. But if they did, I would be right and they would be wrong.

**

It’s no sillier than your scenario for Congress’ removal of the governor of New Jersey.

120

Thanks for the compliment…

As for the authority granted to the IRS requiring you to file yearly income taxes…this is an immensely large subject, and there’s loads of information available online. I personally take particular offense with Social Security Numbers. There’s a wealth of information about them (albeit in a very ugly website) available at:

http://www.cjmciver.org

Basically, this guy doesn’t have an SSN, and such, and lives without one. One particularly nice result of this is that it is technically impossible to pay income taxes to the government, currently, without a TIN or SSN. Me, I tell people that I have no SSN, and I’m weaning myself off of one.

That part looks like I’m getting off subject too easily, so back to the task at hand, the income taxes. Though I don’t have an answer to your question regarding the maximum penalty for not paying, this site might have some useful information…I’ve not waded through all of it (it has plenty of footnotes, and it’s a daunting task…)

http://www.netatty.com/articles/tax.html

I currently pay my income taxes. I will continue to do so until I become governor of my state. When I become governor, lots of neat things will happen. Then, I assume, they’ll lock me up. Hopefully by that time I’ll have influenced other governors enough to get this country back on track? Who knows. All I know is, when I work from January to May and get no pay (because that’s the ratio of my income that is taxed every year), I’m overtaxed.

Anyway, this post is perhaps less coherent than I’d like it to be, but I have other duties to attend to at the moment, so I guess this is goodbye…