Comments on: The Case for a Federalism Amendment http://babalublog.com/2009/04/the-case-for-a-federalism-amendment/ ...an island on the net without a bearded dictator Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:47:20 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Cigar Mike http://babalublog.com/2009/04/the-case-for-a-federalism-amendment/#comment-95228 Cigar Mike Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:10:46 +0000 http://babalublog.com/?p=20803#comment-95228 It's bullcrap. There's no need to change the constitution and frankly nothing scares me more than having the liberals who are now in power to get their grubby hands on it. Like I wrote a few weeks ago, don't like the strings attached to federal money, then don't take the money. The states are not forced to accept it. The only other federal power out there are those in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments dealing with civil rights, the commerce clause dealing with interstate commerce, and the money clause dealing with federal spending. It would be perverse for anyone to argue against the Supremacy Clause when it comes to the reconstruction era amendments. It was those amendments that got us much of the civil rights legislation against the racist governments of the south. The commerce clause got us all civil rights legislation against private entities, the FLSA, etc. I have no problem with those and only a putz would stand to oppose those types of laws. In fact, as it stands, the states are permitted to provide their own laws and provide even greater protection than federal laws so long as the federal law is not intended to be the exclusive remedies. All I can say, insofar all these folks out there who have a bug up their bum on the constitution, should read the writings of Alexander Hamilton, and should read the definitive book on Hamilton by Cernow. The feds when they abuse their powers under the constitution then have to face the court. Hence why many federal laws have been struck down because they exceeded the scope of Congress' authority. But other than the above, the states have plenty of plenary powers. But at the end, it's all about the money. Heck, the states have the power to tax and raise their own revenue. they can tell the feds to shove it and can raise their own revenue, but they don't have the courage to do it. I just wish all these so called pundits would think first. Can you imagine what the libs would do if they had their chance at proposing amendments to the constitution? Fundamental right to abortion on demand paid by the government; fundamental right to government healthcare, fundamental right to marriage between anyone and anything; etc. Once it's in the constitution, you're stuck with it. Caselaw can change through time, but once it's in the big enchilada, only a future amendment can change it, which is hard to do. Hence why the amendment process is as hard as it is. It's bullcrap. There's no need to change the constitution and frankly nothing scares me more than having the liberals who are now in power to get their grubby hands on it.

Like I wrote a few weeks ago, don't like the strings attached to federal money, then don't take the money. The states are not forced to accept it.

The only other federal power out there are those in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments dealing with civil rights, the commerce clause dealing with interstate commerce, and the money clause dealing with federal spending.

It would be perverse for anyone to argue against the Supremacy Clause when it comes to the reconstruction era amendments. It was those amendments that got us much of the civil rights legislation against the racist governments of the south. The commerce clause got us all civil rights legislation against private entities, the FLSA, etc. I have no problem with those and only a putz would stand to oppose those types of laws. In fact, as it stands, the states are permitted to provide their own laws and provide even greater protection than federal laws so long as the federal law is not intended to be the exclusive remedies.

All I can say, insofar all these folks out there who have a bug up their bum on the constitution, should read the writings of Alexander Hamilton, and should read the definitive book on Hamilton by Cernow.

The feds when they abuse their powers under the constitution then have to face the court. Hence why many federal laws have been struck down because they exceeded the scope of Congress' authority.

But other than the above, the states have plenty of plenary powers. But at the end, it's all about the money. Heck, the states have the power to tax and raise their own revenue. they can tell the feds to shove it and can raise their own revenue, but they don't have the courage to do it.

I just wish all these so called pundits would think first. Can you imagine what the libs would do if they had their chance at proposing amendments to the constitution? Fundamental right to abortion on demand paid by the government; fundamental right to government healthcare, fundamental right to marriage between anyone and anything; etc. Once it's in the constitution, you're stuck with it. Caselaw can change through time, but once it's in the big enchilada, only a future amendment can change it, which is hard to do. Hence why the amendment process is as hard as it is.

]]>