Either I'm reading that article wrong, or the headline is wildly inaccurate.

So... state's rights violate the constitution?

hillbillypharmacist: Either I'm reading that article wrong, or the headline is wildly inaccurate.

Yeah, it sounds like it is the US Constitution they are referencing, and not state's.

hillbillypharmacist: Either I'm reading that article wrong, or the headline is wildly inaccurate.

Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House, crafted a provision in the stimulus bill that authorizes state legislatures to seek stimulus money that governors reject.

That's not federal intrusion into the States powers? I know it wouldn't be the first time but the last I heard Governors were the head of the State not legislatures.

While this is a vastly misleading headline (which is hardly surprising, as that's become the de facto standard around here), a policy like this would go a long way toward preventing situations where, say, a barely literate governness with misplaced national aspirations could grandstand and make political hay on refusing stimulus money and basically turn her entire state and its people into nothing but a convenient campaign prop. Not that anything like that would ever happen for real, but just, you know, if it did.

sepuku2: That's not federal intrusion into the States powers?

Without knowing more about the provision beyond a one-sentence blurb, it's impossible to say. It could simply pertain to the application process, which has nothing to do with the states' internal processes.

sepuku2: hillbillypharmacist: Either I'm reading that article wrong, or the headline is wildly inaccurate.

Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House, crafted a provision in the stimulus bill that authorizes state legislatures to seek stimulus money that governors reject.

That's not federal intrusion into the States powers? I know it wouldn't be the first time but the last I heard Governors were the head of the State not legislatures.

It can vary wildly from state-to-state, depending on the state's constitution. Some have a weak legislature, and a powerful governor, or vice versa.

IIRC, some North Carolina Farkers have mentioned that their Governor doesn't even have veto power over the state legislature.

A state constitution is subservient to the federal statute. So that don't make no sense.

Pocket Ninja: While this is a vastly misleading headline (which is hardly surprising, as that's become the de facto standard around here), a policy like this would go a long way toward preventing situations where, say, a barely literate governness with misplaced national aspirations could grandstand and make political hay on refusing stimulus money and basically turn her entire state and its people into nothing but a convenient campaign prop. Not that anything like that would ever happen for real, but just, you know, if it did.

What a bizarre strategy, really. The Republicans can complain about deficit spending and government depedency all they like, but at the end of the day, when states that refused stimulus suddenly can't sop up unemployment with state projects -- and meanwhile states that did are weathering somewhat better -- they'll be voted out on their asses. It's like they're gladly sitting on a time bomb just for the sake of being contrarians.

Sgt Otter: IIRC, some North Carolina Farkers have mentioned that their Governor doesn't even have veto power over the state legislature.

Your right, but it was granted in 1995 as the last state to give veto power to it's Governor. Section 22 of the N Carolina Constitution:

Bills subject to veto by Governor; override of veto. Except as provided by subsections (2) through (6) of this section, all bills shall be read three times in each house and shall be signed by the presiding officer of each house before being presented to the Governor. If the Governor approves, the Governor shall sign it and it shall become a law; but if not, the Governor shall return it with objections, together with a veto message stating the reasons for such objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, which shall enter the objections and veto message at large on its journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration three-fifths of the members of that house present and voting shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections and veto message, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered; and if approved by three-fifths of the members of that house present and voting, it shall become a law notwithstanding the objections of the Governor.

SilentStrider: So... state's rights violate the constitution?

According to Abraham Lincoln, yes.

SilentStrider: So... state's rights violate the constitution?

Depends what right.

DamnYankees: A state constitution is subservient to the federal statute. So that don't make no sense.

Well, state laws yield to federal laws when there is a conflict between the two and the laws pertain to an area over which the federal has authority to govern under the Supremacy Clause. This seems to get into a fuzzy area, since "stimulus" is a fairly vague exercise of any express power. It does seem to raise some basic federalism issues, though. Without further specifics, I'd be hard pressed to venture a solid opinion, but I do think the very notion raises some very valid legal issues.

sepuku2: That's not federal intrusion into the States powers? I know it wouldn't be the first time but the last I heard Governors were the head of the State not legislatures.

It's probably a good way to stop headline grabbing attention whores (sometime known as "Mavericks") from doing something counter productive for the ink.

Truly remarkable after eight years of creating national debt, Republicans suddenly are concerned about taking a stand on it.

Nabb1: It does seem to raise some basic federalism issues, though. Without further specifics, I'd be hard pressed to venture a solid opinion, but I do think the very notion raises some very valid legal issues.

For sure. But if there is a federalism issue, its because the statute violates the *federal* constitution. Not a state constitution.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: It does seem to raise some basic federalism issues, though. Without further specifics, I'd be hard pressed to venture a solid opinion, but I do think the very notion raises some very valid legal issues.

For sure. But if there is a federalism issue, its because the statute violates the *federal* constitution. Not a state constitution.

Yes and no. If Congress is trying to get around a state's constitution to enact some policy or achieve some goal that the Supremacy Clause clearly doesn't give it the trump card on, that is indeed a federalism issue. I mean, yes, that becomes a Constitutional issue in and of itself, but it would be the existence of a contrary provision in a state constitution that would trigger the conflict.

Nabb1: I mean, yes, that becomes a Constitutional issue in and of itself, but it would be the existence of a contrary provision in a state constitution that would trigger the conflict.

I actually disagree. It doesnt matter what's in the state constitution. Congress either has the power to make the law or they don't. Because a state is simply assumed to have all plenary powers to do everything the federal government doesn't have the power to do, all the federal court has to decide is whether Congress is acting within its enumerated powers. They aren't going to look to the state constitution in determining that.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: I mean, yes, that becomes a Constitutional issue in and of itself, but it would be the existence of a contrary provision in a state constitution that would trigger the conflict.

I actually disagree. It doesnt matter what's in the state constitution. Congress either has the power to make the law or they don't. Because a state is simply assumed to have all plenary powers to do everything the federal government doesn't have the power to do, all the federal court has to decide is whether Congress is acting within its enumerated powers. They aren't going to look to the state constitution in determining that.

How can you determine if there is a conflict between the federal policy and state law without looking at the state law in the first place? That makes no sense.

Nabb1: How can you determine if there is a conflict between the federal policy and state law without looking at the state law in the first place? That makes no sense.

It doesn't matter if there is a conflict. All that matters is whether the federal government has the power to do it. The only reason the 'conflict' matters is that it would motivate the state to bring the lawsuit, but its not relevant for federal law.

So why would it be unconstitutional for congress to give state legislatures the power to accept or deny funds over the Governor?

Ryan2065: So why would it be unconstitutional for congress to give state legislatures the power to accept or deny funds over the Governor?

In theory, I don't think Congress has the power to dictate how the internal functions of a state government should work.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: How can you determine if there is a conflict between the federal policy and state law without looking at the state law in the first place? That makes no sense.

It doesn't matter if there is a conflict. All that matters is whether the federal government has the power to do it. The only reason the 'conflict' matters is that it would motivate the state to bring the lawsuit, but its not relevant for federal law.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the Supremacy Clause is not triggered because it is not an area clearly in Congress's scope, then you have to analyze whether or not state and federal law conflict. If they do, and the Supremacy Clause does not apply, then the states win.

Nabb1: That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the Supremacy Clause is not triggered because it is not an area clearly in Congress's scope, then you have to analyze whether or not state and federal law conflict. If they do, and the Supremacy Clause does not apply, then the states win.

Ummm...no. You are mixing up two things - the supremacy clause and the enumerated powers. The supremacy clause only says what trumps what. So you have, in order:

US Constitution
Federal Statute
Federal regulation
State constitution
State statute
State regulation

Each one trumps the one below it. But before you can figure out what trumps what, you need to figure out what is valid law. So in this case we have a Federal Statute versus a State Constitution. We know that if both those laws are valid, then the federal statute will take precedence. But first we need to figure out if the federal statute is within the enumerated powers of the federal government. If so, it wins. Conflict or not.

DamnYankees: Ryan2065: So why would it be unconstitutional for congress to give state legislatures the power to accept or deny funds over the Governor?

In theory, I don't think Congress has the power to dictate how the internal functions of a state government should work.

I don't think that is the reason... I mean look at the bill. (warning pdf) This bill has tons of provisions telling the state what to do and what not to do and they all say the governor is the one who picks and chooses what to do with the money, it is written into the bill. That's why I'm confused... How can it be constitutional for them to write into the bill that the governor is the one who picks the money but unconstitutional for them to write in that the state legislature picks the money?

DamnYankees: Each one trumps the one below it. But before you can figure out what trumps what, you need to figure out what is valid law. So in this case we have a Federal Statute versus a State Constitution. We know that if both those laws are valid, then the federal statute will take precedence. But first we need to figure out if the federal statute is within the enumerated powers of the federal government. If so, it wins. Conflict or not.

I think you are putting the car before the horse. I mean, yes, the Supremacy Clause question can determine whether or not federal law will simply win out, but if it doesn't, or if it's not entirely clear - as is likely with this "stimulus" bill that has innumerable individual measures in it - you have to analyze whether the federal initiative will conflict with state law, because if the feds don't win out, then the states ostensibly win.

Pocket Ninja: While this is a vastly misleading headline (which is hardly surprising, as that's become the de facto standard around here), a policy like this would go a long way toward preventing situations where, say, a barely literate governness with misplaced national aspirations could grandstand and make political hay on refusing stimulus money and basically turn her entire state and its people into nothing but a convenient campaign prop. Not that anything like that would ever happen for real, but just, you know, if it did.

thread over.

Nabb1: I think you are putting the car before the horse. I mean, yes, the Supremacy Clause question can determine whether or not federal law will simply win out, but if it doesn't, or if it's not entirely clear - as is likely with this "stimulus" bill that has innumerable individual measures in it - you have to analyze whether the federal initiative will conflict with state law, because if the feds don't win out, then the states ostensibly win.

I don't know if this is where you were going, but South Dakota v. Dole is where you need to look to find that Congress does have the power to give money to the states with strings attached.

Nabb1: I think you are putting the car before the horse. I mean

I'm allergic to horses so I will stay in the car.

Ryan2065: Nabb1: I think you are putting the car before the horse. I mean, yes, the Supremacy Clause question can determine whether or not federal law will simply win out, but if it doesn't, or if it's not entirely clear - as is likely with this "stimulus" bill that has innumerable individual measures in it - you have to analyze whether the federal initiative will conflict with state law, because if the feds don't win out, then the states ostensibly win.

I don't know if this is where you were going, but South Dakota v. Dole is where you need to look to find that Congress does have the power to give money to the states with strings attached.

Sure, that's the power of the purse. This indicates that Congress is trying to find away to do an end-run around a governors express authority under a state constitution in order to affirmatively enact policy. That's a little different than saying we'll knock 5% off your FHA money if you don't raise your drinking age to 21.

Mr. Anon: Nabb1: I think you are putting the car before the horse. I mean

I'm allergic to horses so I will stay in the car.

Oops. You'll have to excuse me. I have a cold.

Nabb1: Sure, that's the power of the purse. This indicates that Congress is trying to find away to do an end-run around a governors express authority under a state constitution in order to affirmatively enact policy. That's a little different than saying we'll knock 5% off your FHA money if you don't raise your drinking age to 21.

My question is if the state decides who gets to take the money, then why does the bill ask for the governor to pick the money? Isn't that already overstepping their power? I don't understand why the one is constitutional while the other isn't.

I thought that not enforcing a statute as written violated the constitution. Like refusing federal aid for certain things.

Oh wait. Bush proved that you can indeed do a line item veto with out doing a line item veto.

Carry on.

People that made the mistake of electing a republican governor shouldn't be victimized.

Mr. Anon: Nabb1: I think you are putting the car before the horse. I mean

I'm allergic to horses so I will stay in the car.

Plus, there is a lion, so that's probably the safest place to be.

Generation_D: Truly remarkable after eight years of creating biatching about the national debt, Republicans Democrats suddenly are aren't concerned about it.

Ryan2065: Nabb1: I think you are putting the car before the horse. I mean, yes, the Supremacy Clause question can determine whether or not federal law will simply win out, but if it doesn't, or if it's not entirely clear - as is likely with this "stimulus" bill that has innumerable individual measures in it - you have to analyze whether the federal initiative will conflict with state law, because if the feds don't win out, then the states ostensibly win.

I don't know if this is where you were going, but South Dakota v. Dole is where you need to look to find that Congress does have the power to give money to the states with strings attached.

ah yes, the case that basically sealed the deal on why everyone can't drink legally until age 21.

There will probably be some legal challenges but nothing screams "unconstitutional" about this. See SD v. Dole. Correct me if I'm wrong, but accepting this money is completely within the state's power (legislature or governor) and thus doesn't impede on state sovereignty. I fail to see how a signed and sealed act of Congress that contained a provision for the state legislature to supersede the governor could now be blocked by the White House given the fact that OBAMA SIGNED THE BILL.

Laboratories of democracy my ass.

Don't most states have constitutional provisions that allow for a legislative override of a veto?

Just have the state legislature pass a binding resolution that the funds will be accepted, let the governor veto it, and then override the veto.

The Gov will look like a powerless douchemonkey and will likely lose the next election, and the state will get their share of my money.

Ryan2065: Nabb1: Sure, that's the power of the purse. This indicates that Congress is trying to find away to do an end-run around a governors express authority under a state constitution in order to affirmatively enact policy. That's a little different than saying we'll knock 5% off your FHA money if you don't raise your drinking age to 21.

My question is if the state decides who gets to take the money, then why does the bill ask for the governor to pick the money? Isn't that already overstepping their power? I don't understand why the one is constitutional while the other isn't.

Well, that's why I think the issue is very complicated. I'm not sure how the specific mechanisms are in place. It seems to me that what is going here is that in response to some governors saying "no" after the federal government initially left much to their discretion, they are trying to figure out how to get around that and go right to the legislature, which in and of itself may not be a problem unless, as this article implies, doing so violates a state's constitution. And that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional in all situations, but only in those where the Congressional action and the state constitution conflict and the Congressional action is not automatically winning out under the Supremacy Clause. There. I hope I have been sufficiently confusing.

Generation_D: Truly remarkable after eight years of creating national debt, Republicans suddenly are concerned about taking a stand on it.

Better late than never?

DamnYankees: Ummm...no. You are mixing up two things - the supremacy clause and the enumerated powers. The supremacy clause only says what trumps what. So you have, in order:

US Constitution
Federal Statute
Federal regulation
State constitution
State statute
State regulation

Your order is a little off. In addition to what Nabb1 said, the federal government cannot "commandeer" state governments into implementing federal regulations either through state legislation or state regulation. (The Supreme Court held so in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.)

FlashHarry: Pocket Ninja: While this is a vastly misleading headline (which is hardly surprising, as that's become the de facto standard around here), a policy like this would go a long way toward preventing situations where, say, a barely literate governness with misplaced national aspirations could grandstand and make political hay on refusing stimulus money and basically turn her entire state and its people into nothing but a convenient campaign prop. Not that anything like that would ever happen for real, but just, you know, if it did.

thread over.

Not really.

Some state congressional members tend to be whores when it comes to accepting free money, and are perfectly willing to sell their state down the road and spread their cheeks wide open for the feds, if it means a new pedestrian bridge or dog park for their constituents. This is like saying, "you don't want a Wal-Mart in your town? Well too bad, we'll just build it right outside."

Pine Oil Funeral: Generation_D: Truly remarkable after eight years of creating biatching about the national debt, Republicans Democrats suddenly are aren't concerned about it.

Butt hurt is a two way street!

Nabb1: This indicates that Congress is trying to find away to do an end-run around a governors express authority under a state constitution in order to affirmatively enact policy.

What is "this"? The ambiguous sentence at the end of an article about the application process for these federal funds?

Nabb1: It seems to me that what is going here is that in response to some governors saying "no" after the federal government initially left much to their discretion, they are trying to figure out how to get around that and go right to the legislature

The provision was actually written into the Bill. The question is will Obama accept any requests the state legislature gives for the money or deny them all because they are unconstitutional.

Nabb1: And that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional in all situations, but only in those where the Congressional action and the state constitution conflict and the Congressional action is not automatically winning out under the Supremacy Clause. There. I hope I have been sufficiently confusing.

Either Congress has the power to designate who accepts the money or they don't. They don't have the power when states agree with who accepts the money then suddenly lose it when a state disagrees with who accepts the money. It is an all or nothing thing. I think that is what DamnYankees was trying to tell you.

Wouldn't a more accurate headline be: Congress has already crafted and passed legislation that may or may not violate the Constitution allowing....?

couldn't the states write a bill they know would be vetoed that funds the schools anyways with state money that doesn't exist, override the veto, then the governor would have to accept it to funds the program?

State's rights out the windows.


The Federal gov't is grabbing power and no one sees this as a problem?



The Constitution is designed to limit the powers of the Fed. Why do people think a more powerful Fed is the answer?

DamnYankees: Nabb1: That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the Supremacy Clause is not triggered because it is not an area clearly in Congress's scope, then you have to analyze whether or not state and federal law conflict. If they do, and the Supremacy Clause does not apply, then the states win.

Ummm...no. You are mixing up two things - the supremacy clause and the enumerated powers. The supremacy clause only says what trumps what. So you have, in order:

US Constitution
Federal Statute
Federal regulation
State constitution
State statute
State regulation

Each one trumps the one below it. But before you can figure out what trumps what, you need to figure out what is valid law. So in this case we have a Federal Statute versus a State Constitution. We know that if both those laws are valid, then the federal statute will take precedence. But first we need to figure out if the federal statute is within the enumerated powers of the federal government. If so, it wins. Conflict or not.

This.

There is no such thing as a "conflict", all that matters is the order of priority. If any of those steps on the ladder passes a legal new law (aka - one that is legal for themselves to create, and not the exclusive providence of higher powers) then it automatically trumps lower laws. The only (partial) exception is when lower levels actually have tougher laws (rather rare), but even in those cases it can be argued in court that the whatever-level-law in trumped by the looser whatever-higher-level-law.

Phil Herup: The Federal gov't is grabbing power and no one sees this as a problem?

No. It's apparently different when it's a liberal grabbing power.