States’ rights!!
- Thread starter Tom Paris
- Start date
@Aardvark86 can probably cite the cases, but it's pretty established that the real power of the Feds is to decide whether or not to crack the piggy bank for you.
I believe they can't compel unfunded mandates, but they have a lot of leeway for criteria on federal funding.
And anywhere that you have state law contravening federal law, the Supremacy Clause is clear, those are void.
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I believe they can't compel unfunded mandates, but they have a lot of leeway for criteria on federal funding.
And anywhere that you have state law contravening federal law, the Supremacy Clause is clear, those are void.
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
While I have not actually read the complaint the description of it seems stupid. Absent some contractual or grant contingency I’m not aware of anything that requires a state to commit its resources to enforce federal law. Obviously they can’t obstruct its enforcement but I’m pretty sure it’s perfectly legal to sit passively on the sidelines. That’s why George Wallace stepped aside the schoolhouse door. My read of the summaries was that the feds were suggesting that’s not the case at all constitutional level.
So I wouldn’t think of it as a 10a issue per se.
So I wouldn’t think of it as a 10a issue per se.
Last edited:
Trump telling California how to manage their water is a violation of state's rights IMO.
Threating California to withhold Federal funds in un-American.
Threating California to withhold Federal funds in un-American.
Don’t know the details and water rights law is complicated, but there’s clearly federal jurisdiction
About 15 years ago you were upset with states trying to enforce immigration laws, now your upset when the federal government does it, wouldn’t it be easier for you just to say you are an open borders advocate
Really? How?
A quick google search didn't reveal anything other than various CA entities own the water.
Some of the infrastructure is federally owned. That's how trump wasted a few billion gallons last month. Ordered them to open the gates and waste it to 'save LA'.
Trump had the Corp of Engineers dump billions of gallons. That water is now essentially a loss for the farmers that use that in the hotter months. Should be a real boon for high food prices.
Congressional Regulation of Waterways
, of the U.S. Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation
law.justia.com
Pretty clearly within commerce power
Ok, but TL,DR. But the very first word was "Congress".Congressional Regulation of Waterways
, of the U.S. Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation
Pretty clearly within commerce power
Oh to be sure. My point was this is not some
Thing like insurance which is primarlily the province of the states.
The federal government doesn't have the authority to dictate how state and local law enforcement use their resources.
It's the start and end of sanctuary zones.
As I’ve said many times I’m an article I guy. The president may, or may not, have legal authority to micromanage, setting aside whether it’s a good use.
Trump knows zero about California's water distribution network. He should keep his effing hands off that stuff.
I didn’t realize that was the issue. I assumed it was about impeding a federal investigation.
That’s the thing.
Congress has basically spent the last century or so delegating more and more authority to the executive branch.
Came across an article that I posted earlier today about tariffs. Basically congress has passed off responsibility for them to the executive branch.
Folks were warning about the “imperial” executive back iin the 30’s. It’s been a pretty steady march towards that till now.
Now we have Trump and he’s taking advantage of all that authority that was acquiesced by congress.
That is what the argument is reduced to to build a fervor, but at it's heart is jurisdictional control of resources.
