States vs. The Feds: Predictions of Things To Come
As a general rule, the individual States have lived in peace with the federal government. At least they were silent in their seat at the table, what with so much of their money coming from Uncle Sam.
But that was then and this is now.
Arizona, tired of the feds not enforcing immigration laws, decided to do it themselves. The U.S. government has sued Arizona. Coming to the aid of Arizona are now several other States threatening to pass their own immigration laws. The Feds have threatened to sue them, too.
The Feds passed ObamaCare. Before the ink was dry, several States sued the federal government.
The U.S. House appears ready to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (again) and States fear that the U.S. Senate will do the same in the lame duck session between November and January. Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah are conducting referendums to determine whether a secret ballot election for workers trying to unionize should be mandated. In short, the states are trying to pre-empt the effect that the Employee Free Choice Act will have if passed.
Historically, the States have not fared well in litigation with the federal government, mostly because of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution which provides, in essence, that if the Feds have entered the fray, then the States have to step aside or, at least, cannot pass laws contrary to federal law.
What this new level of conflict between the States and the federal government means remains to be seen but it indicates a strong divide between Main Street and Pennsylvania Avenue and how each believes this country should be run and who should run it.
But that was then and this is now.
Arizona, tired of the feds not enforcing immigration laws, decided to do it themselves. The U.S. government has sued Arizona. Coming to the aid of Arizona are now several other States threatening to pass their own immigration laws. The Feds have threatened to sue them, too.
The Feds passed ObamaCare. Before the ink was dry, several States sued the federal government.
The U.S. House appears ready to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (again) and States fear that the U.S. Senate will do the same in the lame duck session between November and January. Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah are conducting referendums to determine whether a secret ballot election for workers trying to unionize should be mandated. In short, the states are trying to pre-empt the effect that the Employee Free Choice Act will have if passed.
Historically, the States have not fared well in litigation with the federal government, mostly because of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution which provides, in essence, that if the Feds have entered the fray, then the States have to step aside or, at least, cannot pass laws contrary to federal law.
What this new level of conflict between the States and the federal government means remains to be seen but it indicates a strong divide between Main Street and Pennsylvania Avenue and how each believes this country should be run and who should run it.
posted by Jim Karger at 8:03 PM
1 Comments:
I'm a states rights kind of guy; but then again, I reside in Texas by choice. Texas is unlike most of the other forty-eight in that it has the necessary resources to be able to unhook itself from the Fed-tit at a moments notice. I believe that moment draws nearer each day. I feel sorry for Rhode Island or West Virginia and other one-trick ponies who can't simply take the same kind of position as the Fed exerts itself in unwanted style & form. Regarding Arizona, oddly, the one thing they have an abundance of counterfeit citizens. They must simply disobey any Federal mandate regarding border control options as the horse is already out of the barn. Counterfeit workers should be paid in barter form only - no cash!
Post a Comment
<< Home