I don’t know? Why don’t you tell me.
If the constitution grants specific powers to the federal gov’t and all others to the states, it would seem to me that there is little the federal gov’t can do that it does. For instance:
-
The constitution does grant border protection solely in the domain of the federal gov’t. Sooooo, wouldn’t a president or executive branch failing to act to defend the border be unconstitutional, or a criminal act?
-
Welfare, there is nothing in the constitution that allows the federal gov’t to subsidize companies or individuals for desired behavior, but we do it via taxes, grants, and other benefits.
-
How about abortion? Which I support and think we need more of. There is nothing in the constitution that allows or forbid it, yet we have federal law protecting it.
-
EPA, too much to even mention here.
-
How about this quarantine bs. Courts have ruled time and time again that STATES have a lot of leeway in handling public safety crisis. I read an analysis yesterday that said if Christie wanted to hold that woman in quarantine, there is likely little that could have stopped it.
Why did I post these? They are all contradictory examples where federal gov’t vs state power.
Examples one, three, and four are where federal interest (lobbying, or political efforts) for trump local interest (norms, safety and economic) so they flex their muscle.
In case one, the feds flex their muscle to do nothing, in the other two, they flex their muscle to force a change.
Example three is where the feds use executive agencies (IRS to hand out money to the highest bidder or buy votes)
Example four, the feds use the EPA to seize land, extort lobbying funds, general control.
Example five, the federal gov’t uses an almost absolute state right as cover. With all the other examples, why is it that they cannot supersede state rights here??? Is it perhaps the progressive authoritarians generally agree, even if they do not do so publicly?
Example five is the important one, as it shows that states can get pretty powerful if they band together and flex their muscle. Arizona lost the border battle because it stood alone and a federal gov’t run by democrats had too much momentum to challenge it. Not saying the outcome would have been different with a republican president, but it might not have had to go to the supreme court, instead a compromise might have been made as a republican president and congress would have had a similar voting constituency as Arizona. Even if the lobbying efforts were for weaker control.
What do all these have in common now? Well, they wouldn’t have likely been issues 180 or 120 years ago. They only exist today through normalization (precedent built on precedent) or apathy. Regarding borders. Nativism was rare or localized. Our federal gov’t along with most reasonable people endorsed open borders. After all, this was a free country. You were free to come, produce and thrive, or free to come and starve. It sort of worked itself out. There was no income tax, few executive departments, and no welfare that required an income tax or debt financing. Instead, charity and in some rare cases local gov’t provided social welfare. Local cities or stated governed the people based on local customs that were more appropriate. That to worked except in rare cases that warranted challenges (Jim Crow laws, etc.). And how about quarantine? It was quite common for severe cases of tuberculosis or malaria to result in people getting committed to sanitariums for treatment or in most cases hospice care. Little has changed except that modern medicine has prevented a modern plague, perhaps until now.
So with this knowledge, tell me how this was settled?