Federalism?

So, how is this different in principle from a Federal law stating that "all states that accept funds from the Federal government shall adopt California's constitution and state laws, making only the necessary exceptions to change the name of the state to their own"? 

Or the next Republican Congress with a Republican President changing the language to "Alabama"?

It seems to me that 'you can't cut taxes for five years' is meddling in the internal policies of the state to such a degree that you might by the same principle say 'you must adopt favored state laws in other matters,' and thus, 'in any matter,' and thus, 'in all matters.' 

I suppose it's possible that the courts might throw out this provision, but the courts aren't impressing me lately with their devotion to preserving our heritage or Constitutional order. All those Trump judges and Justices, and they still seem mostly inclined to go along with whatever the powers that be want to do. 

6 comments:

  1. I have nothing but respect and admiration for our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. However, they dropped the ball when it came to Article III. There is no effective check on the power of the judiciary. Consequently, our lifetime appointed federal judges ultimately become enamored with the immense power they wield and are loathe to do anything that might jeopardize it. That often results in them deferring to powerful interests, such as the government or popularly perceived issues, instead of upholding the express provisions of the Constitution. The energy that conservatives expend on judicial nominees as an election issue is misplaced. We need to advocate for effective checks on the court’s power.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So New Hampshire might get punished for good behavior again? Great.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Or the next Republican Congress with a Republican President changing the language to "Alabama"?

    Twenty Republican Senators just voted to confirm Merrick Garland as Biden's Attorney General. In contrast, three Democrats voted to confirm William Barr, and NO Democrats voted to confirm Jeff Sessions.

    Sixteen Republicans voted to confirm a former House Democrat who claimed that the Trump administration was purposefully opening up businesses targeting lower-income America to get black people to spend their COVID relief checks as HUD Secretary.

    Despite some people thinking QAnon and guys with horned hats have taken over the Republican party, I really don't see the evidence that most Republican politicians or Republicans in general have anything like the desire Democrats show to find any possible way to implement their agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's long past time for us to quit taking federal dollars. It will always lead to this kind of extortion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For that to happen, Tex, we'd first have to stop sending so many of our dollars to Washington to be redistributed back to the states...
    That's highly unlikely to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ymarsakar5:30 PM

    Miracles create unlikely

    ReplyDelete