A Return to the Constitution????

[CaptainHaplo]

As of right now - there are 21 states signed on. From what I understand - it takes 34 states to concur and force the Federal Government to comply or dissolve and be reformed.

This is from a local radio station that is following the story. If you check the data - you can see its real enough.

Could it be - the Constitution might just make a return as the way we run our government??????

http://www.takeastandshow.com/pages/Agnes.html

If you see this later - you may have to scroll through or search on it - its in regards to States demanding their rights per the 10th Ammendment to the Constitution.

[baggygreen]

and so for us uneducated non-yanks this means what, that they're going to force a double dissolution of your congress and sack the president, then begin again?

[surf_ten]

Hmm wouldn't this bring about secession? Wasn't this tried already in the 1860's? I guess Obama can get his chance to be the next Lincoln after all.

[Platapus]

As of right now - there are 21 states signed on. From what I understand - it takes 34 states to concur and force the Federal Government to comply or dissolve and be reformed.

Not quite sure I understand what you mean by that.

IAW Article five of the Constitution

2/3rds of the states 34 (the question of DC has not been addressed since the 23rd amendment) may

.. call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states.... In this case the number would be 38.

But this would be to make and pass an other amendment to the Constitution. I am not familiar with any legislation that would allow 34 states (perhaps you meant 38) to "Force the Federal Government" to do anything. I believe that would be called an Insurrection and is addressed in Article 1 section 8.

Article 1 Section 10 limits the rights of states to form alliances with other states without the approval of the Congress so I am not sure any states can combine efforts and "force" the federal government.

If the states feel that their constitutional rights are being infringed by the Federal Government, Article 3 Section 2 states that the judiciary is the authoritative body. Ultimately it would be the Supreme Court of the United States who would rule on any state right constitutional infringement.

There is no right of any state or group of states to force the government to either do something or dissolve. That would be called a revolution.

Here is an interesting article on this history of how the Ninth amendment has been followed, broken, or modified.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/8815/Ninth-Amendment.html

Here is an interesting article on this history of how the tenth amendment has been followed, broken, or modified.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/10730/Tenth-Amendment.html

[baggygreen]

fascinating platapus :yeah:

[CaptainHaplo]

A bit of a history lesson here guys.

It takes more than 2/3's of the states to accomplish much. 2/3 of 50 is 33.3~ - meaning you would have to have 34 states onboard.

Here is what each state is basically doing:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

Or - as it states:

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
Whereas, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
Whereas, Article IV, section 4, United States Constitution, says in part, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", and the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.
Therefore
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:
1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.
4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

What this amounts to is 21 states telling the Federal Government to suck eggs. If 34 do so - the Federal Government loses all of its powers not specifically allocated to it under the Constitution. That means it has no more power to collect federal taxes, enforce federal law, etc etc. In essence - it becomes a powerless entity barring explicitely granted powers.

This has EXTREMELY far reaching ramifications. Perhaps my wording of dissolve was a bit erroneous - but the fact remains that the constitution gave us the ability to STOP the federal government without a violent revolution - and it looks like there is a real groundswell moving in that direction.

As for the Judiciary being the arbiter - realize that any judicial decision made would then also be at the mercy of the 34 states - as they override Federal law at that point since they can almost ammend the constitution as necessary to shut down the federal judiciary.

Tell me the founding fathers weren't brilliant! I love our constitution!

[baggygreen]

So.... I got lost reading through that, but it said in essence that Arizona have already passed it into their law that they've forbidden the federal govt from doing anything not expressly permitted by the constitution?

If thats the case, can the fed govt turn around and tell the states to suck eggs and cut off all federal funding?

[surf_ten]

I am not a gun owner, but if the federal government makes any attempt to infringe on the second amendment, taxes the hell out of ammunition to the point of being too expensive for most honest citizens to afford, or imposes some liability insurance scheme on gun owners so that they cannot afford the insurance, then I truely hope that 34 states can get their act together and tell the Feds to suck it. Although I get the feeling the current bunch in congress and the Obama adminstration will not allow the states to excerise their constituational rights in this matter.

[Kapt Z]

The argument sounds good here in NJ since we get back like 10 cents of every dollar we send to the Feds. More states want to refuse Federal funding bully for us!

Only problem is our state gov't is so inept it makes the Feds look good. :yeah:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I am not familiar with any legislation that would allow 34 states (perhaps you meant 38) to "Force the Federal Government" to do anything. I believe that would be called an Insurrection and is addressed in Article 1 section 8.

Article 1 Section 10 limits the rights of states to form alliances with other states without the approval of the Congress so I am not sure any states can combine efforts and "force" the federal government.
You are correct that three-fourths of the states are required to ratify. Two thirds are needed to propose an amendment for ratification.
I'm not sure why you think that this effort would classify as an insurrection though. As long as it goes through the legal amendment process, the states are excercising clearly defined powers. You're right that states can't force the federal government to do anything, but creating an amendment intended to do so is perfectly legal, I think.


That means it has no more power to collect federal taxes

That's not entirely correct. There are a number of federal taxes that are not uniformly applied across all states as defined in article 1 section 8, but they do have the power to tax and tariff.


I do like the spirit of this kind of legislation, CH. However I'm not terribly excited just yet. For one thing, I didn't see any proposed amendments in that list you provided, although I didn't check every link.
For another, a lot of them are just resolutions, not bills. The example you provide from Arizona, HCR 2024, is just a resolution that, the senate permitting, copies of the resolution will be made available to some people in Washington. It's the legislative equivalent of a post-it note on the fridge. With a lot of states behind it, it may have an effect, but nothing is set in stone.


As for the Judiciary being the arbiter - realize that any judicial decision made would then also be at the mercy of the 34 states - as they override Federal law at that point since they can almost ammend the constitution as necessary to shut down the federal judiciary.

Well I hope they don't do that. We need a judiciary branch, just not one that interprets the constitution so broadly, so often, imo.


All that being said, this is still really good news. Nice find:up:

[Platapus]

The Congress does have an ace up their sleeves. After all the founding fathers were not fool enough to actually give up control to a bunch of states. :nope:

There are two very special words buried deep in the Constitution that gives Congress a rather large (having been stretched over the many years) loophole.

Reference Article 1, Section 8 Paragraph 1

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Did you see em whiz past you? Lemme bird-dog them for you

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This is what Congress bases their expansion of power over the states on. Provide for the general welfare of the United States. Wow! That is a loop hole you can drive a Type IXB through with the periscope raised!

These little golden words have been debated for years by not only constitutional scholars but also in the Judiciary. Since the 9th and 10th Amendments do not specifically address the golden words, one interpretation is that Article 1, Section 8, paragraph is still viable and trumps the amendments.

There is disagreement but so far the Judiciary seems to be leaning in favour of Article 1 on this.

Remember many of our founding fathers were slicky lawyers. :up:

[Sailor Steve]

Platapus, I appreciate your links to the discussions on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. What gets me is the mention that judges disagree on what rights were meant but not mentioned. It's like they are blind to the concept of "All rights belong to the people", and "Government has no rights". Or, as the the document the Constitution stems from says "...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men."

How do they miss it idea that we make laws to protect ourselves from each other, and that's where it begins and ends?

"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations."
-Thomas Jefferson; letter to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800

[Platapus]

There does seem to be a change that has been increasing since the Second World War to move from the United States of America to the United Federation of America.

But this has been a concern ever since the original Articles of Confederation, which did not work out so well.

However, a valid argument can be made that just because the Articles of Confederation did not work in the 1780's's does not mean the concept would not work in 2010.

Scholars much smarter than I have spent a lot of time studying this and have not come up with an answer.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Reference Article 1, Section 8 Paragraph 1


Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


It is quite a loophole isn't it? Given the nature of the rest of the Constitution and what I have gleaned form the Federalist papers, which have been an important source of interperetation for the Constitution, I believe that they literally meant "welfare of the United States" in the terms of the time. That is, the welfare of the nation. That is, not welfare for the people of the nation.
As you have said, this is a source of frequent and heated debate.
My preference would be for a budget Amendment that limits Federal spending and requires that the Federal Government remain profitable. Not a perfect solution, but one that could effectively curtail their power and prevent their mistakes from passing to the taxpayers, in most cases. I'd prefer that such an Amendment limit the federal budget to a very small percentage of the GNP.
I believe that such a measure would effectively close the loophole created by article 1.

Your thoughts?

[Platapus]

I believe that the founding fathers missed one major threat to the citizens.

It appears that the founding fathers thought that the worst thing congress could do is pass bad laws. Hence the balance of power between the three branches which would preclude congress from passing really terrible laws.

However, in my opinion, the worst thing that congress can do is spend money. There are no restrictions on what congress can spend money on... and little if no oversight. Congress is no longer interested in making laws but in how they can spend money for their agendas.

Even though I am a staunch believer in small governments, I often think it might be advantageous for there to be a fourth branch of the government.

This branch would be the only branch empowered to collect/levy taxes but is not authorized to spend money (which might cut down on the conflict of interest).

Congress, therefore, would have the authority to spend money but only the money the fourth branch gives it.

The intent is that there should not be one branch of the government with unlimited power to obtain money and have unlimited power to spend money.

Just a whacky idea.

[August]

Just a whacky idea.

And not a bad one either... :up:

[Digital_Trucker]

Just a whacky idea.
And not a bad one either... :up:
Yes, but it makes too much sense for DC's taste:D Seriously it's about time government was run as a business rather than a private playground for the "public servants" (what a misnomer that is).

[Platapus]

Yes, but it makes too much sense for DC's taste:D Seriously it's about time government was run as a business rather than a private playground for the "public servants" (what a misnomer that is).

I disagree. I think the word "service" amply describes what the government provides to the citizens.......

Just like how a bull provides service to a cow. :wah:

[August]

"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[Sailor Steve]

Geeze, August, where'd you dig that one up. That's not in the Constitution!
:rotfl:

Sorry, couldn't resist. Some time ago I referred to "No man shall be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property without due process of law", in reference to property taxes and the result if you don't pay them. His responce: "I never read that in the Bill of Rights".

I like this discussion. Platapus's 'Fourth Branch' may or may not be the answer, but it's worth discussing.

Personally I'll stick with my Jefferson quote for now.

[August]

I know its not the law but it is the reason for the law and that makes it just as valid as the law itself.

[Aramike]

A 4th Branch is an example of great, outside the box thinking, but I doubt it'd work. There's little reason to believe that the ideological "guidelines" which transcend the current 3 branches wouldn't simply cross-over into a 4th.

Personally, I'd suggest an Ammendment banning deficit spending instead. Every dollar spent annually must, in turn, be raised annually. I doubt it'd take too long for the pols to realize that the populace won't stand for 80% taxation and, as such, CUTTING programs to reduce spending would be the default way to raise funds.