I’d been waiting to see some commentary on this recent SCOTUS decision from some of my usual go-to legal analysts, but the decision seems to have gotten lost in the other news.
What needs to happen is for governors to ignore any and every rule, policy or law that emanates from the Feds but is not supported by the enumerated powers. 10A exists for that reason. But it relies of governors to enforce it.
Too many governors, however, fail to understand that the States were designed to be superior to the feds, that the Supremacy Clause applies ONLY to the enumerated powers. They do this cuz they all think they’re in AAA ball waiting for the call-up to the Show.
They need to grow a pair and tell the Feds to shut up whenever the Feds color outside their limited lines...
I agree, but the problem is most states are dependent on federal dollars (subsidies) for various programs. And people in every state have gotten used to the free money for their favorite programs. Thus, there seems to be little incentive to ignore the fed. My guess is that some states are losing more revenue to the fed than are brought into the state from the fed. Don't know whether this could work, but it might be an interesting exercise in federalism to see individual states turn down their federal subsidies, and instead instruct all corporations, businesses, and individuals within their borders to re-direct their federal tax dollars to their respective depts of revenue and away from the fed. This might be advantageous for some states (e.g., Texas), but disadvantageous for many others.
Unfortunately, the states gave up a great deal of their power with the enactment and ratification of the 17th Amendment (providing for the direct election of Senators). Previously, of course, Senators were appointed by the state legislators and, if a particular Senator got too far off the reservation and began exercising independent judgement that was not palatable to the state legislature, he could be recalled and a new appointment made.
While I agree 17A was deleterious to State representation at the federal level, the Senate is a federal body limited by 10A (in theory, anyway). Any governor can prohibit the feds from extending powers - legislative, regulatory, etc. - outside the enumerated powers. They can take the issue to SCROTUM if they want, but the federal courts, too, are part of the federal government. (Ex: SCOTUS had no business even hearing Roe as abortion is not among the enumerated powers; same with any suit on marriage, sports, bathrooms, education), and the Constitutionally proper response to any negative from the federal courts is, "How many divisions does SCOTUS have?"
Another couple of examples in the current news: General Police powers were RESERVED, not DELEGATED, hence, no Constitutional authority for the FBI exists. No Constitutional authority exists for foreign aid, as well. Feel free to check Art1, Sec 8 for the enumerated powers - you won't find foreign aid, police powers, etc.
The real fast track means of eliminating administrative behemoths that destroy all that they touch, sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly . . . that would require legislative acts. Instead of eliminating agencies, departments, commissions, bureaus; the feckless legislative branch piles on ever more powers making matters worse. So, the court cases slowly and methodically grind along and the people are irretrievably ground into the dust as time passes on.
“Friday’s ruling is part of the current Court’s project to reassert the proper understanding of the separation of powers. The Court has tried to rein in administrative agencies that have taken on the power to rewrite laws without Congressional authority, enforce those laws as they see fit, and then review them as if they were an Article III court. That’s why Friday’s ruling is so important to individual liberty.”
Another potential case that will likely land before SCOTUS is the latest EPA and administration powerplay to require two-thirds of all new passenger vehicles be electric by 2032(?). How much of an effect would that have on the country without congress weighing in? The left's arrogance is mind-numbing.
Absolutely. And, while I'm not sure about the constitutional issues in these cases, this decision may encourage many more. The reason I say I'm not sure is because in the two mentioned the structure was said to be unconstitutional. I don't know about the EPA situation, but I know EPA lost a big case in WV not long ago.
Yes. And at the same time as it upholds separation of powers it also upholds the power of the states in our federal system--we saw that in the abortion case and in others. It's a long slog. The SCOTUS isn't a legislature and, if they're to observe their own proper functioning, they have to wait for the right cases to come along. Still, I think they're trying to act in a principled way.
You really should subscribe to the digital WSJ, Mark. It's the best $39/per month expenditure in my budget.
I'm with Gorsuch on this one. Roberts, the incrementalist, is too afraid of making a wide-ranging decision, so his cocktail party invitations won't dry up.
What needs to happen is for governors to ignore any and every rule, policy or law that emanates from the Feds but is not supported by the enumerated powers. 10A exists for that reason. But it relies of governors to enforce it.
Too many governors, however, fail to understand that the States were designed to be superior to the feds, that the Supremacy Clause applies ONLY to the enumerated powers. They do this cuz they all think they’re in AAA ball waiting for the call-up to the Show.
They need to grow a pair and tell the Feds to shut up whenever the Feds color outside their limited lines...
I agree, but the problem is most states are dependent on federal dollars (subsidies) for various programs. And people in every state have gotten used to the free money for their favorite programs. Thus, there seems to be little incentive to ignore the fed. My guess is that some states are losing more revenue to the fed than are brought into the state from the fed. Don't know whether this could work, but it might be an interesting exercise in federalism to see individual states turn down their federal subsidies, and instead instruct all corporations, businesses, and individuals within their borders to re-direct their federal tax dollars to their respective depts of revenue and away from the fed. This might be advantageous for some states (e.g., Texas), but disadvantageous for many others.
Unfortunately, the states gave up a great deal of their power with the enactment and ratification of the 17th Amendment (providing for the direct election of Senators). Previously, of course, Senators were appointed by the state legislators and, if a particular Senator got too far off the reservation and began exercising independent judgement that was not palatable to the state legislature, he could be recalled and a new appointment made.
While I agree 17A was deleterious to State representation at the federal level, the Senate is a federal body limited by 10A (in theory, anyway). Any governor can prohibit the feds from extending powers - legislative, regulatory, etc. - outside the enumerated powers. They can take the issue to SCROTUM if they want, but the federal courts, too, are part of the federal government. (Ex: SCOTUS had no business even hearing Roe as abortion is not among the enumerated powers; same with any suit on marriage, sports, bathrooms, education), and the Constitutionally proper response to any negative from the federal courts is, "How many divisions does SCOTUS have?"
Another couple of examples in the current news: General Police powers were RESERVED, not DELEGATED, hence, no Constitutional authority for the FBI exists. No Constitutional authority exists for foreign aid, as well. Feel free to check Art1, Sec 8 for the enumerated powers - you won't find foreign aid, police powers, etc.
VERY interesting - Thanks!
Q: How did the administrative state originate?
A: By legislative acts, statutory laws.
The real fast track means of eliminating administrative behemoths that destroy all that they touch, sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly . . . that would require legislative acts. Instead of eliminating agencies, departments, commissions, bureaus; the feckless legislative branch piles on ever more powers making matters worse. So, the court cases slowly and methodically grind along and the people are irretrievably ground into the dust as time passes on.
“Friday’s ruling is part of the current Court’s project to reassert the proper understanding of the separation of powers. The Court has tried to rein in administrative agencies that have taken on the power to rewrite laws without Congressional authority, enforce those laws as they see fit, and then review them as if they were an Article III court. That’s why Friday’s ruling is so important to individual liberty.”
Another potential case that will likely land before SCOTUS is the latest EPA and administration powerplay to require two-thirds of all new passenger vehicles be electric by 2032(?). How much of an effect would that have on the country without congress weighing in? The left's arrogance is mind-numbing.
Absolutely. And, while I'm not sure about the constitutional issues in these cases, this decision may encourage many more. The reason I say I'm not sure is because in the two mentioned the structure was said to be unconstitutional. I don't know about the EPA situation, but I know EPA lost a big case in WV not long ago.
Yes. And at the same time as it upholds separation of powers it also upholds the power of the states in our federal system--we saw that in the abortion case and in others. It's a long slog. The SCOTUS isn't a legislature and, if they're to observe their own proper functioning, they have to wait for the right cases to come along. Still, I think they're trying to act in a principled way.
You really should subscribe to the digital WSJ, Mark. It's the best $39/per month expenditure in my budget.
I'm with Gorsuch on this one. Roberts, the incrementalist, is too afraid of making a wide-ranging decision, so his cocktail party invitations won't dry up.