Federalism: Case for Reinvigorating State's Rights

Federalism: Case for Reinvigorating State's Rights

There is an ongoing battle over the proper size and role of the federal government, especially as it relates to conflicts with state governments over legislative authority. Conservatives believe that state and local governments should be empowered to handle local issues such as healthcare, education, immigration, and many other social and economic laws.

Original Constitutional Roles

There is little question that the current role of the federal government far exceeds anything ever imagined by the founders and has clearly taken over many roles originally designated to individual states.

The founding fathers, through the U.S. Constitution, sought to limit the possibility of a strong centralized government and in fact gave the federal government a very limited list of responsibilities. Simplified, the founders thought that the federal government should handle issues that it would be difficult or unreasonable for states to handle such as the maintenance of military and defense operations, negotiating with foreign countries, creating currency, and regulating commerce with foreign countries. Ideally, individual states would then handle all most matters that they reasonably could. The founders even went further in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights to prevent the federal government from grabbing too much power.

Benefits of Stronger State Governments

One of the clear benefits of a weaker federal government and stronger state governments is that the needs of each individual state are more easily managed. Alaska, Iowa, Rhode Island, and Florida are all very different states with very different needs, populations, and values.

A law that may make sense in New York might make little sense in Alabama. For example: Some states have determined it is necessary to prohibit the use of fireworks due to an environment that is highly susceptible to wild fires. Other states have no such problems and have laws that allow fireworks. It would not be valuable for the federal government to make one standardized law for all states prohibiting fireworks when only a handful of states need such a law in place. State control also empowers states to make tough decisions for their own well-being rather than hope that the federal government will see the states’ problem as a priority.

A strong state government also empowers citizens in two ways. First, state governments are far more responsive to the needs of the residents of their state. If important issues are not addressed, then voters can hold elections and vote in people they feel are better suited to handle the problems. However, if an issue is only important to one state and the federal government has authority over that issue, then they have little influence to get the change they seek as they are but a small part of a larger electorate. Second, empowered state governments also allow individuals to choose the state that best fit their own personal values. Families and individuals are able to choose states that either have no or low income taxes, or states with higher ones. They can opt for states with weak or strong guns laws, with restrictions on marriage or without them, and so on. Some people may prefer to live in a state that offers a wide range of government programs and services, others may not. But just as the free market allows individuals to pick and choose products or services they like, so to can they choose a state that best fits their lifestyle. An over-reaching federal government limits this option.

Continue reading full article at http://usconservatives.about.com/od/conservativepolitics101/a/The-C...


Why They Fear the Ninth Amendment

Machan's Musings - Why They Fear the Ninth Amendment by Tibor R. Machan Quite interestingly, many politicians are afraid of the Ninth Ame…


The 10th Amendment in One Lesson

The 10th Amendment in One Lesson July 29, 2016 By Michael Boldin“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor pro…


The Power of State Constitutions to Protect Liberty

CATO The Power of State Constitutions to Protect Liberty Featuring Clint Bolick September 20, 2016 State constitutions often protect libert…


How The Ruinous "Living Constitution" Idea Took Root

How The Ruinous "Living Constitution" Idea Took Root George Leef ,  Contributor Forbes The “living Constitution” theory amounts to saying t…


The 14th Amendment “Incorporation Cases” Violate the 10th

The 14th Amendment “Incorporation Cases” Violate the 10th and are Unconstitutional Douglass Bartley Amendment 14, Section 1, in part: “[N]o…


Turning the Bill of Rights into a Billy Club

Turning the Bill of Rights into a Billy Club 12/17/16   Michael Maharrey America celebrated Bill of Rights Day earlier this week. But perha…

Views: 867

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

After keeping an eye of the states for a few years, that's one thing I admire about attorney general Paxton and governor Greg Abbott. Of course I shouldn't dis the Republicans in Texas who are fighting the good fight.

It is the citizens who should be the final arbiter when it comes to annexing not the city or it's bureaucrats. Keep us updated Larry.

AG Paxton Joins West Virginia and Three Other States in Supreme Court Brief to Protect Second Amendment Rights
Tuesday, July 25, 2017 – Austin
“The Fourth Circuit interpretation places an unlawful burden on Second Amendment rights. The Constitution plainly guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, whether through open or concealed carry,” said Attorney General Paxton. “We must ensure the Court continues to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.”


agrees with OAG Opinion that municipal 🌲 ordinances may violate TX Constitution



Right to Work Laws in the Courts — An Update
Raymond J. LaJeunesse July 24, 2017

Right to Work laws, which prohibit requirements that workers pay union dues as a condition of employment, have been enacted in twenty-eight states and the territory of Guam. Since my last blog on this subject, dated February 22, 2017, the constitutionality of another state Right to Work law has been upheld by a federal appellate court. On July 12, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected two union arguments: (1) that Wisconsin’s private-sector Right to Work law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act to the extent that the state law prohibits forcing workers to pay dues or fees to unions for collective-bargaining purposes to keep their jobs, and (2) that, if not thus preempted, the law effects an unconstitutional taking of union property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment[1].  The Seventh Circuit followed its own earlier decision in Sweeney v. Pence, 767 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2014) (2-1 decision), which upheld Indiana’s “substantively identical” Right to Work law. The court noted that the union “points to no intervening developments in statutory, Supreme Court, or even intermediate-appellate-court law between Sweeney and today that undermine Sweeney’s validity.”[2].

In the meantime, other union lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Idaho, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Wisconsin Right to Work laws continue, with all but West Virginia’s law still enforceable. Oral argument in the state court case against the Wisconsin private-sector law was held in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on May 2, 2017, and the State’s appeal of the preliminary injunction against West Virginia’s law is set for September 5, 2017, in the West Virginia Supreme Court.

Updated brief summaries of these cases are available from NRTW.

[1] Operating Eng’rs Local 139 v. Schimel, No. 16-3834, 2017 WL 2962896 (7th Cir. July 12, 2017), aff’g 210 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (E.D. Wis. 2016).

San Diego Unified School Board Forced to Reverse Sharia Indoctrination Policy In City Schools

By Capt Joseph R. John, August 1, 2017: Op Ed # 363
In the article: https://www.fcdflegal.org/san-diego-unified-school-district-rescind..., the writer explains why a coalition of San Diego Patriotic organizations, families of San Diego City School students, San Diego registered voters in the Democrat and Republican parties, leaders of the Christian & Jewish communities, members of Veterans Organizations, retired Law Enforcement Officers, Women Volunteers In Politics, retired military personnel, and the Combat Veterans For Congress PAC came together to support The Freedom of Conscious Defense Fund (FCDF) Federal Law Suit filed by Charles S. LiMandri, Esq. against the San Diego Unified School Board to oppose its partnership with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to indoctrinate impressionable young students in the San Diego City Schools in Islam and Sharia Law. 
CAIR was identified as an International Terrorist Organization and outlawed in 2014 by the United Arab Emirates .  CAIR was listed by the FBI as an Unindicted Co-Conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Terrorist Trial for supporting the funding of Terrorist Groups.  The Muslim Brotherhood (MB), founded in Egypt in 1928, and its Front Groups have been outlawed and designated as dangerous International Terrorist Organizations by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrein, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia.  Israel, Canada, and the United Kingdom are considering designating the MB and its Front Groups as an International Terrorist Organization. 
The Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR, support ISIS, Al Q’ieda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, and many other Radical Islamic Terrorist Organizations; they have been trying to install Sharia Courts in the US, in order to settle legal disputes under Sharia Law.  The Muslim Brotherhood has been able to do install Sharia Courts in England, France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, etc.; establishing Sharia Law in the United States would be a violation of the US Constitution. 
CAIR formed a partnership with the leftist who they helped elect to the San Diego Unified School Board (SDUSB), to indoctrinate young impressionable San Diego students in Sharia Law and the Islam Religion.   The SDUSB presided over the replacement of history books that once accurately spelled out the 240 year History of the United States. The SDUSB purchases  new school books with corrupted version of US History.
The new US History books often criticize the US, eliminates courageous stories about the Founding Fathers, does not explain the background about George Washington who was the Father of the nation, does not provide details of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, does not point out that the US was the first country in history to eliminate slavery, that the US freed millions of people from tyrannical dictators, that the US returned lands it gained control in wars to the people of those countries, prevented the persecution of people because of their religion, empowered subjugated people to seek their right of self-determination, championed freedom of speech, etc.
The new teaching curriculum in Islam and Sharia Law was created, under the false guise that it was required to prevent the bullying of Muslim students.  It was not necessary because there had been a very effective anti-bullying regulation in effect in the San Diego City Schools for many  years.  The Islam indoctrination teaching curriculum was in violation of US Laws and the US Constitution. 
The Muslim Brotherhood formed many Front Groups to give itself cover while trying to establish Sharia Law in the US, by creating CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, MSA, ICNA, MAS, MPAC, IIIT, etc. Those Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups are all unified to stealthily supporting  the establishment of a Fifth Column, to operate within US Government Agencies, similar to how the Communist Party did so in the 1940s and the 1950s.  Over the last 8 years, Obama’s appointed thousands of members of the Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups to many very sensitive and highly classified positions throughout the US government (they still populate many agencies of the US government and should be removed).  
CAIR’s founder Omar Ahmad stated “CAIR must one day dominate the US.”  He also said “The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam is the only accepted religion on Earth.”  Linda Sansour, a convicted terrorist and mouth piece for CAIR, called for “Jihad” against the President of the United States, and said Muslims must not assimilate.  To assimilation would be to support the universal principles Americans adhere to, by becoming an integral part of the Republic as immigrants have done for over 100 years.  Sharia does not support universal principals Americans adhere to, i. e. support women’s equality, support freedom of religion, endorse American Patriotism, and support the US Constitution.  
According to a Pew Research Study, 20 % of the 900,000 Middle East Muslim Refugees that Obama resettled in 187 US cities over the last 8 years, and their second generation off springs, refuse to assimilate into US society, like millions of immigrants before them have embraced the United States over the last 100 years.  The Muslim refugees who refused to assimilate are fertile ground for Radical Imam’s, recruited from Pakistan who preach a radical version of Islam in thousands mosques in the US.  
Over the last 8 years, many second generation refugees with US passports were recruited, funded to travel to the Middle East and Africa , and trained by ISIS and Al Q’ieda.  Instead of immediately arresting those returning newly trained Radical Islamic Terrorist with US passports, they were allowed to reenter the US unimpeded for 8 years.
In Europe the Muslim Brotherhood established thousands of enclaves in many European cities, ruled only by Sharia Law where Sharia Courts had been established.  Those courts ruled on legal disputes that occurred in the general population, including  rendering decisions that affected Christians, and Jews, with final legal decisions governed only by Sharia Law, not by established civil laws in those European countries.
The Federal Law Suit against the San Diego Unified School Board, discussed below, is the first step in the list of actions necessary to stop CAIR and The Muslim Brotherhood from changing public school teaching curriculum to indoctrinate young impressionable students in Sharia Law and the Islam Religion; the fight to protect American students and the US Constitution is far from over, and will require future vigilance.   
Americans citizens should educate their fellow citizens about the serious threat Sharia Law poses to the governing laws of the US and to the US Constitution.  We encouraged you to forward this Op Ed to those in your address book, in order to alert them to CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal to teach Sharia and Islam in city schools, in cities across the nation.
Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John.  All Rights Reserved.  The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author.  It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.  
Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt    USN(Ret)/Former FBI
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

AG Paxton Joins 15-State Coalition in Filing Amicus Brief to Uphold the Congressional Review Act
Monday, July 31, 2017 – Austin

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recently joined a coalition of 15 states filing an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in the case of Center for Biological Diversity v. Ryan Zinke and Department of the Interior, defending the constitutionality of the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

Enacted by Congress in 1996, the CRA is a critical tool that helps to restore to Congress the ability to write federal policy by congressionally reviewing recently passed administrative rules at the change in administrations. Congress has used the CRA at least 14 times this year to eliminate unlawful and burdensome rules created during the last six months of the Obama administration. If the CRA is declared unlawful, these harmful and unlawful regulations may well go back into effect.

“Time and again, we’ve seen federal rules cause unjustifiable harm to Texas and other states,” Attorney General Paxton said. “The Congressional Review Act provides an efficient procedure Congress can use to stop federal overreach and block onerous regulations. There is something unconstitutional in this area: federal agencies wresting power to write laws away from Congress. The CRA restores the Constitution’s separation of powers. If the CRA is unconstitutional, then the constitution is unconstitutional.”

Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel and Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr co-led the amicus brief. They were joined by Attorney General Paxton along with his counterparts from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah.

To view a copy of the Congressional Review Act amicus, click here: http://bit.ly/2tpmQoZ


South Dakota: Initiated Constitutional Amendment would require judges recuse for campaign contributions; new State Government Accountability Board would have power over judges

July 27, 2017

A proposed South Dakota constitutional amendment, currently circulating for signatures, could require the state’s judges to recuse in cases involving campaign contributors.

In 2016 voters in the state passed IM 22, amending state statutes related to campaign finance and lobbying laws. While approved by voters, the legislature effectively rewrote and overturned the measure during its 2017 session.

In June proponents of IM returned with a new proposal, this time a constitutional amendment, that includes some of IM 22’s provisions and several new ones, including one focused on judges.

Under Section 11 of the proposed constitutional amendment

A judge shall avoid the appearance of bias, and shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which monetary or in-kind support related to the judge’s election or retention creates an appearance of bias to a reasonable person.

Circuit judges in South Dakota are subject to non-partisan elections, while South Dakota Supreme Court judges are appointed via a merit/commission based system and subject to yes/no retention elections.

In addition the legislatively created State Government Accountability Board would be replaced with a new board of the same name with the power to investigate both legislators and judges, including the power to adopt rules of ethics that would be binding on judges and to investigate judges for violations of those ethics or existing ethics/corruptions statutes. Moreover, the Board would have the power to impose sanctions on judges.

The initiative requires 27,741 signatures to be gathered and submitted to the secretary of state by November 2017 to appear on the November 2018 ballot.


AG Paxton Files Brief in 5th Circuit to Defund Planned Parenthood

Tuesday, August 8, 2017 – Austin

Attorney General Ken Paxton urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to overturn a district court decision that blocked Texas from cutting off state Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. The injunction was issued in spite of the evidence of raw, unedited footage from undercover videos showing a willingness by Planned Parenthood officials to traffic in fetal body parts and manipulate the timing and method of abortions.

“Planned Parenthood practices constitute serious breaches of medical and ethical standards,” Attorney General Paxton told the 5th Circuit in a legal brief. “They justify the Inspector General’s decision to terminate Texas Planned Parenthood affiliates’ Medicaid agreements, on the basis that these entities are not ‘qualified’ providers under the Medicaid Act.”

“Texas acted to cut off major taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood because of its repugnant conduct,” Attorney General Paxton said. “Clear indications of Planned Parenthdood’s adjustment of abortion procedures to procure and sell fetal body parts for research should be enough to reverse a district court’s egregious ruling.”

In December 2016, the Texas Health and Human Services inspector general removed Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid program for the video footage of actions that “violate generally accepted medical standards” and for making false statements to law enforcement.  Planned Parenthood receives approximately $3.1 million in state Medicaid funding annually.  

View the brief here: http://bit.ly/2vBfmD4

View the undercover videos here: http://bit.ly/1faSttB


AG Paxton Leads 16-State Coalition in Amicus Brief Supporting Wisconsin’s Redistricting Plans

Tuesday, August 8, 2017 – Austin

Attorney General Ken Paxton led a 16-state coalition filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday in support of Wisconsin’s redistricting maps that were drawn in full compliance with traditional redistricting principles. The outcome of the case could affect elections across the country.                                                             

Last year, a panel of three judges in Gill v. Whitford ruled 2-1 that Wisconsin’s 2011 redistricting plan was unconstitutional. That decision was the first from a federal court in more than 30 years to reject a voting map as partisan gerrymandering.

“Never has the U.S. Supreme Court disallowed a legislative map because of partisan gerrymandering, and it surely can’t find fault with Wisconsin’s, which is lawful, constitutional and follows traditional redistricting principles,” Attorney General Paxton said.

In ruling for the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin case, the three-judge panel accepted a fundamentally flawed mathematical formula known as the “efficiency gap” that attempts to measure the level of proportional representation in legislative maps. In his amicus brief, Attorney General Paxton wrote that the formula “does not actually measure vote dilution or distribution in reality, but simply the deviation from a statewide proportional votes-to-seats ratio masked by an additional mathematical formula.”

Texas is joined in the Supreme Court amicus brief by the attorneys general from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia.

View the amicus brief here: http://bit.ly/2vJTtkx


Ohio Schools Train Staffers to Shoot Intruders

There have been two totally different reactions to school shootings like the one that happened at Sandy Hook Elementary school. Anti-gun...

The Brief: Paxton's "sanctuary cities" suit dismissed — but the fight's not over

A federal judge dismissed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's request to dub the state's new "sanctuary cities" ban constitutional on Wednesday — but the legal battle isn't over yet.


Can Secession Only Be Approved by a Constitutional Amendment? Yes


Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?
With Permission, Perhaps; Unilaterally, No



© 2017   Created by Suzie Nielsen.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service