State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing

[sactoking]

Ummm...... I think the vast majority of you are missing the point. This is not about secession. It is not about federal taxes. It is the states saying that they don't want the federal Gov't mandating their participation in certain programs WITHOUT providing funding or threatening to cut off non-related funding.

Does anyone remember No Child Left Behind? If I remember correctly, the Bush Admin and Congress mandated all states meed NCLB standards yet provided absolutely no money to do so. When states balked, the Fed said that non-compliance would result in the loss of Federal funds for unrelated programs, like roads and infrastructure.

The articles linked all say that states want to invalidate these unfunded, extortionist mandates.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Ummm...... I think the vast majority of you are missing the point. This is not about secession. It is not about federal taxes. It is the states saying that they don't want the federal Gov't mandating their participation in certain programs WITHOUT providing funding or threatening to cut off non-related funding.

Does anyone remember No Child Left Behind? If I remember correctly, the Bush Admin and Congress mandated all states meed NCLB standards yet provided absolutely no money to do so. When states balked, the Fed said that non-compliance would result in the loss of Federal funds for unrelated programs, like roads and infrastructure.

The articles linked all say that states want to invalidate these unfunded, extortionist mandates.

So why not have a Constitutional Convention and propose an amendment that would explicitly prohibit the Federal Government from these practices? The states have that power, all they need is 2/3s of the states to agree.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Ummm...... I think the vast majority of you are missing the point. This is not about secession. It is not about federal taxes. It is the states saying that they don't want the federal Gov't mandating their participation in certain programs WITHOUT providing funding or threatening to cut off non-related funding.

Does anyone remember No Child Left Behind? If I remember correctly, the Bush Admin and Congress mandated all states meed NCLB standards yet provided absolutely no money to do so. When states balked, the Fed said that non-compliance would result in the loss of Federal funds for unrelated programs, like roads and infrastructure.

The articles linked all say that states want to invalidate these unfunded, extortionist mandates.

Someone who reads! Inconceivable!

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: sactoking
Ummm...... I think the vast majority of you are missing the point. This is not about secession. It is not about federal taxes. It is the states saying that they don't want the federal Gov't mandating their participation in certain programs WITHOUT providing funding or threatening to cut off non-related funding.

Does anyone remember No Child Left Behind? If I remember correctly, the Bush Admin and Congress mandated all states meed NCLB standards yet provided absolutely no money to do so. When states balked, the Fed said that non-compliance would result in the loss of Federal funds for unrelated programs, like roads and infrastructure.

The articles linked all say that states want to invalidate these unfunded, extortionist mandates.

Someone who reads! Inconceivable!

Ban him.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Ummm...... I think the vast majority of you are missing the point. This is not about secession. It is not about federal taxes. It is the states saying that they don't want the federal Gov't mandating their participation in certain programs WITHOUT providing funding or threatening to cut off non-related funding.

Does anyone remember No Child Left Behind? If I remember correctly, the Bush Admin and Congress mandated all states meed NCLB standards yet provided absolutely no money to do so. When states balked, the Fed said that non-compliance would result in the loss of Federal funds for unrelated programs, like roads and infrastructure.

The articles linked all say that states want to invalidate these unfunded, extortionist mandates.

This.

Did any the rest of you jackasses even read the article!?

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: sactoking
Ummm...... I think the vast majority of you are missing the point. This is not about secession. It is not about federal taxes. It is the states saying that they don't want the federal Gov't mandating their participation in certain programs WITHOUT providing funding or threatening to cut off non-related funding.

Does anyone remember No Child Left Behind? If I remember correctly, the Bush Admin and Congress mandated all states meed NCLB standards yet provided absolutely no money to do so. When states balked, the Fed said that non-compliance would result in the loss of Federal funds for unrelated programs, like roads and infrastructure.

The articles linked all say that states want to invalidate these unfunded, extortionist mandates.

So why not have a Constitutional Convention and propose an amendment that would explicitly prohibit the Federal Government from these practices? The states have that power, all they need is 2/3s of the states to agree.

I think it's because the states take the position that the amendment you propose already exists, it's #10. Why try to amend the Constitution when all you really need is to enforce the amendments already enacted?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: sactoking
Ummm...... I think the vast majority of you are missing the point. This is not about secession. It is not about federal taxes. It is the states saying that they don't want the federal Gov't mandating their participation in certain programs WITHOUT providing funding or threatening to cut off non-related funding.

Does anyone remember No Child Left Behind? If I remember correctly, the Bush Admin and Congress mandated all states meed NCLB standards yet provided absolutely no money to do so. When states balked, the Fed said that non-compliance would result in the loss of Federal funds for unrelated programs, like roads and infrastructure.

The articles linked all say that states want to invalidate these unfunded, extortionist mandates.

So why not have a Constitutional Convention and propose an amendment that would explicitly prohibit the Federal Government from these practices? The states have that power, all they need is 2/3s of the states to agree.

I think it's because the states take the position that the amendment you propose already exists, it's #10. Why try to amend the Constitution when all you really need is to enforce the amendments already enacted?

Has any state ever tried to contest the mandates judiciously? I'd imagine any such case would rocket its way through the system to the SCOTUS based on the invocation of the 10th Amendment.

If no state has tried, why not?

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Has any state ever tried to contest the mandates judiciously? I'd imagine any such case would rocket its way through the system to the SCOTUS based on the invocation of the 10th Amendment.

If no state has tried, why not?

That's a good question, and my honest answer is that I have no idea.

A bit of quick research shows states have sued the Fed over things like SCHIP and the recent Bush admin rule on abortion, so it can be done.

This is just supposition, but maybe the extortionist policies (threatening funding over a separate issue) aren't protected, and maybe an amendment or law WOULD need to be enacted as you suggest.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Ummm...... I think the vast majority of you are missing the point. This is not about secession. It is not about federal taxes. It is the states saying that they don't want the federal Gov't mandating their participation in certain programs WITHOUT providing funding or threatening to cut off non-related funding.

Does anyone remember No Child Left Behind? If I remember correctly, the Bush Admin and Congress mandated all states meed NCLB standards yet provided absolutely no money to do so. When states balked, the Fed said that non-compliance would result in the loss of Federal funds for unrelated programs, like roads and infrastructure.

The articles linked all say that states want to invalidate these unfunded, extortionist mandates.

This.

Arguing for states' rights has nothing to with secession.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: palehorse
Has any state ever tried to contest the mandates judiciously? I'd imagine any such case would rocket its way through the system to the SCOTUS based on the invocation of the 10th Amendment.

If no state has tried, why not?

That's a good question, and my honest answer is that I have no idea.

A bit of quick research shows states have sued the Fed over things like SCHIP and the recent Bush admin rule on abortion, so it can be done.

This is just supposition, but maybe the extortionist policies (threatening funding over a separate issue) aren't protected, and maybe an amendment or law WOULD need to be enacted as you suggest.

They did sue over the ridiculous 55MPH mandate and lost. As always they stretched the meaning of the Commerce Clause to cover the Federal action and found no violation of the 10th amendment.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Being from the Northeast, i'm sick of giving more of my money to lazy good for nothing red states in the south than i receive.

No big deal.. stop sending federal funds to Tennessee. Just don't bitch when you drive on Interstate 40, 65, or 24 and have to pay a toll to maintain the roads. These interstates are all major corridors for interstate commerce.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Phokus
Being from the Northeast, i'm sick of giving more of my money to lazy good for nothing red states in the south than i receive.

No big deal.. stop sending federal funds to Tennessee. Just don't bitch when you drive on Interstate 40, 65, or 24 and have to pay a toll to maintain the roads. These interstates are all major corridors for interstate commerce.

Yet those in KY and GA would still be paying the same Federal taxes to fund the roads. Would we suddenly pay 2% less because one state is no longer interested in playing the game for Federal funds? No.