How the US federal government holds states hostage

The federal government is supposed to be limited to the enumerated powers granted it in the US Constitution, but we constantly see it overstepping these bounds, and there always seems to be something the federal government can fall back on to keep the stranglehold on states and minimize their sovereignty. My example, and this is only a drop in the bucket, is the Department of Education.

As preface to this, I cite the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 (Legislative Branch/Powers of Congress)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


This clause to me means that there is a litmus test to any legislative action, that being that anything they do must benefit every man, woman, and child in the states equally. It also means that whenever the federal government wants to overstep its bounds and go outside of the enumerated powers, it either uses this clause or the commerce clause. But they never pass the litmus test because they aren't uniform (i.e. steal from the rich to pay the poor) and often don't cross state lines so they are not interstate commerce. If they don't pass the litmus test, they are up to the states or the people.

So how does this relate to federal stranglehold? or the Department of Education? Education is up to the states and the people and is not an enumerated power of the federal government . It is not general welfare since it only benefits students. It is not interstate commerce.

School budgets come mainly from states and municipalities, but a significant portion comes from the federal government. See PRESIDENTS EDUCATION BUDGET SUBMISSION for details. Essentially, Obama wants to spend $19 Billion on education. But there's two problems with this. States that do not want to comply with draconian mandates are refused their share. Essentially, the federal government tells them that they are smarter and know better how to allocate money for public education. So if a state does not want to use federal curriculum rules and federal standardized testing measures, they get nothing. Does that mean that the federal government reduces the personal and business tax rates for that state? Of course not. Secondly, the money, regardless of what the state does in compliance of federal rules and testing performance, is re-distributed with preference to lower income areas. This does not pass the 'general welfare' test.

If you read the Department of Educations statements regarding this, they claim that "accepting federal funds is entirely voluntary". Well DUH! But of course taxation isn't.

I live in a rural area, and many of the older people here grew up going to one room schoolhouses. Many of them in turn went on to further education and were fully prepared to compete in a secondary education system. I'd personally like to see public education focus on very basic skills and keep the federal government and their silly mandates out of it. Politicians and political appointees DO NOT know better how to educate our children. We have local teachers and administrators that have been doing it all their working careers and know far better what we need. As a country we spend more per student on education but we're way down the list on performance. It hasn't always been that way and the only common link is increased federal involvement. The federal government is failing and blaming it on municipalities.

This is how the feds work. We need our country back.

Good stuff... the nail in the coffin of state sovereignty was the 17th amendment. After that the individual states had no recourse when their US Senators voted contrary to the state's interests. Imagine how different tings would be had the 17th amendment never came to pass. Vote for Obamacare... recalled. Vote for gun control... recalled. Ratify some globalist BS UN treaty.... RECALLED. You get the idea. Taking the power and authority of electing US Senators away from the state legislatures and giving it to the people was a HUGE mistake, although I wouldn't really call it a mistake because it was done on purpose with the future consequences well known.

If you and I created a system through which we took money from everyone by force consolidated it kept a large portion of it to employ our friends, supporters and family in appointed positions then demanding the "people" only need do as we wish if they want to benefit from the "protection/benefits" provided with and afforded from it we'd be labeled racketeers and crooks.

Here's the next one. The national speed limit. The 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act mandated that states institute a 55 mph or less statewide speed limit OR forego federal funding for roads. Of course, federal funding for roads comes from use tax which is imposed on fuel sales. If a state did not want to comply with the federal speed limit, people within that state were still assessed the same use tax whenever they bought fuel. This is extortion. People go to jail for this. Dictating a speed limit is not within the enumerated powers of the federal government. The net effect of the national speed limit, supposedly intended to both reduce fuel consumption for the false-flag fuel shortage at the time and to make highways safer, was virtually nil.

Another example of federal interference and power-grabbing that has absolutely no benefit. Why is it that people don't realize that less federal government is better?

reply to post by lynxpilot


Drinking Age same deal...

It’s no better than a "protection racket" practiced in mobster days of old.

reply to post by lynxpilot


Okay, so you want the government to stay out of your states education but you complain that the government isn't going to give you any money for state education ?

reply to post by lynxpilot


Just a couple of issues here with your post that I found and feel free to correct me if you disagree.

The federal government is supposed to be limited to the enumerated powers granted it in the US Constitution

This is not entirely true. The Supreme Court has established the idea of "implied powers" to the federal government also. This means that even though they may not be spelled out in the Constitution, if it helps them achieve their enumerated powers then it is acceptable.

This clause to me means that there is a litmus test to any legislative action

This is a common problem within the Constitution; there are many clauses that mean different things to different people. What you read one way, someone else will read another.

The particular clause you mentioned is problematic because of the term "general welfare". The courts have given the federal government an extreme amount of wiggle room in regards to these two words.

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by lynxpilot

 

Okay, so you want the government to stay out of your states education but you complain that the government isn't going to give you any money for state education ?

I'm afraid you are putting the cart in front of the horse. I don't want the federal government involved in education at all. As a result, I would expect that the president would not submit a budget that contained $18 Billion in taxation for purposes of education. That would mean the president's federal budget would be $18 Billion less than he would have submitted with education built into it.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by lynxpilot

 

Just a couple of issues here with your post that I found and feel free to correct me if you disagree.

The federal government is supposed to be limited to the enumerated powers granted it in the US Constitution

This is not entirely true. The Supreme Court has established the idea of "implied powers" to the federal government also. This means that even though they may not be spelled out in the Constitution, if it helps them achieve their enumerated powers then it is acceptable.

This clause to me means that there is a litmus test to any legislative action

This is a common problem within the Constitution; there are many clauses that mean different things to different people. What you read one way, someone else will read another.

The particular clause you mentioned is problematic because of the term "general welfare". The courts have given the federal government an extreme amount of wiggle room in regards to these two words.

Implied powers must have a direct link to the enumerated power which they support.

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by lynxpilot

 

Just a couple of issues here with your post that I found and feel free to correct me if you disagree.

The federal government is supposed to be limited to the enumerated powers granted it in the US Constitution

This is not entirely true. The Supreme Court has established the idea of "implied powers" to the federal government also. This means that even though they may not be spelled out in the Constitution, if it helps them achieve their enumerated powers then it is acceptable.

This clause to me means that there is a litmus test to any legislative action

This is a common problem within the Constitution; there are many clauses that mean different things to different people. What you read one way, someone else will read another.

The particular clause you mentioned is problematic because of the term "general welfare". The courts have given the federal government an extreme amount of wiggle room in regards to these two words.

Implied powers must have a direct link to the enumerated power which they support.

That is beyond a grey area there.

A link must be established but that could be razor thin and still qualify. Basically the Supreme Court has stated that as long as Congress can justify it, they won't stand in the way.

The cases regarding the commerce clause are prime examples of Congress skating the edge and the Court backing them up.

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by lynxpilot

 

Okay, so you want the government to stay out of your states education but you complain that the government isn't going to give you any money for state education ?

I am not answering for Lynx but here is my answer.

It's not really hard to understand - personally I want the Federal Government not to have a hand in education at all therefore the tax burden would cease to exist for that purpose reducing the rate of federal taxation. There would in effect be no reason to raise money at the federal level for the management or oversight in the field of education therefore no money to grant or deny.

More importantly there would be less money taken at the Federal level and the people can decide what is best for their district, County or State.

Then the people could if they wanted to live in a State with certain educational goals and standards that required higher taxation at the State level they could do so.

Likewise if an individual would rather live in a State that doesn't spend a lot on education and has lower taxes they could do that as well.

That is called the theory of self governance – allowing the Federal Government to take money from all people for education then pay a bloated bureaucracy to manage and apportion funds only to districts they think are worthy and follow their regulations takes all local authority away and places it at the hands of a far flung and inhomogeneous mob. A mob that is not even a local one – likely with different values and morals. Urban America doesn’t share the same goals or values as rural American nor does it face the same challenges in education. There is no one size fits all solution.

Imagine if the Federal Government were limited to taxation for the regulation and enforcement of it's 18 enumerated powers?

How much less would our tax burden be?

As an addendum to what Gof66 is saying, I dare say 99% of teachers would tell you that federal government interference and mandates are actually counterproductive. It's not only a matter of choice, such as wanting to skimp on education, it's more like government interference is a hinderance.

Think about it. The government is run by elected officials who appoint their buddies to directorates that lead these departments of federal government. Turnover is election-by-election in a lot of cases. Who has the expertise in any given area? Is the appointed Attorney General better at law enforcement than the chief of police in TownX? How much experience does the AG have in crimefighting? This applies to any one of these departments. The directorate is not vetted by the industry, only the incumbent administration. Furthermore, the federal directorate is selected by the ivory tower and does not have the trust and familiarity with the municipality.

I'd much rather the same money was spent on education but that the revenues and decisions all came from my own district.

Dept of education should be abolished. Education is never mentioned in the constitution and so by the tenth amendment it is a state issue. Claiming ed is part of "general welfare" does not work since it's impossible to prove federal involvement in education does indeed provide for the general welfare. Most americans would say the opposite, the feds just make education worse.

Originally posted by Hopechest

This is not entirely true. The Supreme Court has established the idea of "implied powers" to the federal government also. This means that even though they may not be spelled out in the Constitution, if it helps them achieve their enumerated powers then it is acceptable.

And where is the idea of implied powers mentioned in the constitution? Answer - nowhere. It's something the Supreme Court just invented. The federal court always supports the federal congress. States need to grow some balls and assert their rights. According to the constitution the states are sovereign countries like the states in the European Union are.