Oklahoma's Sovereignty Resolution

[guido911]

It passed the house overwhelmingly and is now heading to the Senate. It will be interesting to see what effect it will have (if any) if it gets passed.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89842

[TheArtist]

Yaaaawn... scratch scratch

[cannon_fodder]

Well, I think it is at least interesting.  Clearly the scope of the Federal Government is way, WAY beyond what anyone alive in the revolutionary period would have ever imagined.  In fact, it could be argued that our Federal Government exerts more authority on your day to day life than the King every did.

The notion of "limited government" is totally dead. As part of a bill they have to show that they have constitutional authority to act.  1 law in 80 years has been struck down on those grounds.  And I don't think it is because only 1 bill stretched the authority of government.

Not to say it is all for the worse.  The FDA is valuable.  The Corps of Engineers does use full projects.  Same with the Dept. of the Interior, BLS, Parks Service, Dept. of Ag, EPA, FCC, FAA and any of the ~280 executive agencies that have no real authority... many do good.  But that doesn't mean they are not outside the scope of a limited government.  If they are, they only have power of the states to the extent a state submits to their authority.

Oh the horrors of a Federal Union of States.

Historically:  education, health, transportation, State Guards, and legal codes were the domain of the states.  The military got away from the State model and entirely went to a national army by WWI (token National Guard for the states), education was swept up in the New Deal and is now dependent on Federal money (read: they can tell them what to do), health care is Federal unless you forgo the federal funding (states can make some decisions, but at the end of the day $$$ from the Fed = Fed program), the DOT has enough influence over road funding to dictate all transportation laws and many ancillary laws in the nation (universal 21, for instance) not to mention having states beg for highway money, and as I mentioned the Federal Government allocates so much money that they can "persuade" a state to change nearly any law they want.

So what is the domain of the State anymore?

At least something that should be discussed to keep states relevant on some level.

[we vs us]

Didn't the Civil War put to rest the stronger state idea?  That, at least in interpretation, the constitutional idea of federal government would trump individual states' rights?  

And a broader question to you libertarians out there:  wouldn't a global superpower need a strong central government to retain its strength and dominance?  And don't we need a strong federal government to adjudicate between states?  I'm thinking of the wildly different interpretations of border security and how to deal with illegal immigration as an example of the confusion a strong state model would foster.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Didn't the Civil War put to rest the stronger state idea?  That, at least in interpretation, the constitutional idea of federal government would trump individual states' rights?  

And a broader question to you libertarians out there:  wouldn't a global superpower need a strong central government to retain its strength and dominance?  And don't we need a strong federal government to adjudicate between states?  I'm thinking of the wildly different interpretations of border security and how to deal with illegal immigration as an example of the confusion a strong state model would foster.

Lookit we are in a post-constitutional era.  It has been stretched all out of recognition and there will be calls for a new Constitutional convention.

Er, post-constitutional?  Really?  It was built to be changed and reinvented.  There's a whole coequal branch of government that exists to interpret it.  And if we find it offends us, we can change it.

I just can't see us trying to rebuild our founding documents from the ground up.

[cannon_fodder]

Wevus,

The Federal Government was given charge of international treaties and border security since inception.  That is an enumerated Federal power.  Same with the military, they were granted the right for an army and a navy int he document itself.

Thus, the aspects you are discussing are proper Federal powers.

If you want the Federal Government to be an unlimited government that can occupy any domain that it pleases, then lets change the constitution to say that.  If we are going to continue to have a limited government, then lets limit it.    I am NOT trying to rebuild the founding document nor am I trying to have some kind of draconian literal reading (which is impossible).  I'm simply saying we operate with an unlimited Federal Government that trumps both state and individual rights at will - and that is dangerous.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist



Yaaaawn... scratch scratch

Somebody should have warned TheArtist.  

It could have been worse though.  He's lucky he only got fleas from this thread.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Well, I think it is at least interesting.  Clearly the scope of the Federal Government is way, WAY beyond what anyone alive in the revolutionary period would have ever imagined.  In fact, it could be argued that our Federal Government exerts more authority on your day to day life than the King every did.

Sure..in the revolutionary period we got ourselves the Articles of Confederation. We saw how well that worked out. Well enough to end up with a new Constitution that gave the federal government the power of taxation, among other things.

Then after the Civil War, we amended the Constitution to put the states under the authority of the federal Constitution.

Like it or not, our Constitution's effect has been changed dramatically through the amendment process since it was originally ratified.

That doesn't mean I agree at all with the principle of the Feds forcing the states to bend to their will through the power of the purse, but the Federal government does have essentially unlimited taxing authority and makes large sums of money available to the states, sometimes with strings attached.

In reality those strings usually amount to loss of a small amount of highway or whatever other funds, rather than the whole shebang, hence there still being states that don't comply with Federal wishes on open container laws and such.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Then after the Civil War, we amended the Constitution to put the states under the authority of the federal Constitution.

Like it or not, our Constitution's effect has been changed dramatically through the amendment process since it was originally ratified.

That's neither entirely accurate nor the crux of my argument.  

The constitution applying to the states was a good result in my opinion.  But it rests not on actually amendments to the constitution, but to the notion 60 years later that the amendments really MEANT to apply the entire constitution to the states because the 14th Amendment can be read to reference the 5th Amendment.  The argument was and remains dubious at best.  A great example of a court using very weak logic to achieve a necessary end (civil rights movement).

Similarly, nothing in the Bill of Rights or constitution in total authorizes unlimited government.  The application of the Bill of Rights to the States does not authorize medicaid, medicare, section 8, title 19, EPA, FFA, FDA and on and on.  Most Federal Programs are wholly outside the scope of a limited government - like the programs or not, they are outside the scope.  

And furthermore, nothing in that document as Amended indicates that the Federal Government is meant to tax the people in excess of its needs in order to coerce States into action.  They take tax money from Oklahoma, then tell us we can have it back if we. . . .  Now, I largely agree with the goals of said coercion (again, a product of the civil rights movement largely) but it is now used to coerce whatever law they see fit.  

That, my friend, has not been written into the Constitution.  I'm not even arguing against the current system.  I merely saying that to pretend States have any rights and/or that the Federal Government is only granted the power the people allow it to have is a total farce.  The Federal Government does as it pleases, when it pleases, and rarely answers to the people for it.

[PonderInc]

More embarrassing news from Oklahoma.

Sigh.

How many of our state legislators have even read the US Constitution?  

When was the last time you did?

Cover to cover.

Sigh.

[Townsend]

Is this another way we're telling them to take their federal highway funds and stick it?

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Then after the Civil War, we amended the Constitution to put the states under the authority of the federal Constitution.

Like it or not, our Constitution's effect has been changed dramatically through the amendment process since it was originally ratified.

That's neither entirely accurate nor the crux of my argument.  

The constitution applying to the states was a good result in my opinion.  But it rests not on actually amendments to the constitution, but to the notion 60 years later that the amendments really MEANT to apply the entire constitution to the states because the 14th Amendment can be read to reference the 5th Amendment.  The argument was and remains dubious at best.  A great example of a court using very weak logic to achieve a necessary end (civil rights movement).

Similarly, nothing in the Bill of Rights or constitution in total authorizes unlimited government.  The application of the Bill of Rights to the States does not authorize medicaid, medicare, section 8, title 19, EPA, FFA, FDA and on and on.  Most Federal Programs are wholly outside the scope of a limited government - like the programs or not, they are outside the scope.  

And furthermore, nothing in that document as Amended indicates that the Federal Government is meant to tax the people in excess of its needs in order to coerce States into action.  They take tax money from Oklahoma, then tell us we can have it back if we. . . .  Now, I largely agree with the goals of said coercion (again, a product of the civil rights movement largely) but it is now used to coerce whatever law they see fit.  

That, my friend, has not been written into the Constitution.  I'm not even arguing against the current system.  I merely saying that to pretend States have any rights and/or that the Federal Government is only granted the power the people allow it to have is a total farce.  The Federal Government does as it pleases, when it pleases, and rarely answers to the people for it.

You are certainly correct that the Federal Government is in effect essentially unlimited in its powers, despite the text of the Constitution.

However, the Constitution supplies no means test to determine what its taxation needs in fact are, thus leaving the taxation authority of the Federal Government unlimited by anything but political will.

That it abuses that authority is not necessarily a violation of the Constitution in letter, although I would argue that it is indeed a violation in spirit.

As far as the particular programs you spoke of, most of them can easily be construed to fall under Article I, Section 8, in that they provide for the general welfare of the United States. The Constitution is rather broad in its grants of power. I would certainly prefer that it not be so, but it is. (I say this as someone fully in support of things like universal health care..that doesn't mean I like the Feds to have essentially unlimited authority, however!)