PDA

View Full Version : Can the U.S. Government Declare a State Constitution 'Un-Republican'?



Chris
03-14-2014, 08:29 AM
This raises an interesting constitutional question, at least one I've never before considered. Does the Constitution imply a state and its constitution must have a republican form of government?


Can the U.S. Government Declare a State Constitution 'Un-Republican'? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/can-the-us-government-declare-a-state-constitution-un-republican/284367/)


...Here’s a puzzle for the "states’ rights" and "state sovereignty" crowd: the "Guaranty Clause," Article 4 § 4, which binds the federal government to "guarantee to every state ... a republican form of government."

That clause, like a dormant volcano, rumbled last week in a courtroom in Denver. The sound should worry those who think state prerogatives trump those of the nation.

Since the earliest days of the republic, this clause has been interpreted to mean that when Congress recognizes a state government and admits its members to Congress, it is implicitly finding the state’s government properly "republican." In fact, when admitting new states to the union, Congress has for more than a century placed in the statute wording finding that the people have adopted a "republican form of government."

The sobering implication is that Congress could decide at any point that a state’s constitution was not "republican," expel its members of Congress, and require its people to draft a new constitution.

It’s kind of hard to square that power with the claim that the states are "co-sovereigns" with the federal government. It’s an odd kind of "co-sovereign" that exists by grace of its "peer."

...

Captain Obvious
03-14-2014, 10:20 AM
Wouldn't it be at the very least a given considering a republic requires... a republic?

Or, then why wouldn't say New York declare itself a one-party socialist state? Or even a dictatorship?

It's basically that anyway, but hypothetically speaking.

MrJimmyDale
03-14-2014, 10:29 AM
If congress did that, it would be the states collectively making that decision. If Obama wanted to use an executive order to expel a state from congress I would have a problem with it.

Chris
03-14-2014, 11:08 AM
I've always read the guaranty clause as a promise to the states the federal government would provide republican government, iow, something like federalism. The Constitution defines the federal government, what it's permitted to and prohibited from doing. The notion it can dictate the states' form of government is odd to me.

The Sage of Main Street
03-14-2014, 01:54 PM
After interpreting the Constitution as giving them the right to interpret the Constitution, the SCROTUS can determine that anything they don't like is unconstitutional, interpreting the Constitution as saying anything they want it to say. They also can interpret Amendments any way they want to, so the Amemdment process is not an answer to their tyranny.

MrJimmyDale
03-14-2014, 02:56 PM
^^^^^almost on topic........better job than usual

Peter1469
03-14-2014, 06:59 PM
So long as a state government followed the Constitution, as Amended (particularly the 14th Amendment and the case law discussing its applicability to the sates), the federal government has no authority over a state (other than withholding of federal funds ploy). States are still sovereigns, and have only given the federal government limited and enumerated powers.

Contrails
03-14-2014, 08:03 PM
This raises an interesting constitutional question, at least one I've never before considered. Does the Constitution imply a state and its constitution must have a republican form of government?

Can the U.S. Government Declare a State Constitution 'Un-Republican'? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/can-the-us-government-declare-a-state-constitution-un-republican/284367/)

Madison clearly argues for representative government over direct voting in Federalist #10, but would such a ruling not also jeopardize the initiative system that exists in many states?

Chris
03-15-2014, 09:22 AM
Madison clearly argues for representative government over direct voting in Federalist #10, but would such a ruling not also jeopardize the initiative system that exists in many states?

Yep, in fact that's where the OP article goes with this in the following case:


I’ve written before (here and here) about the case, Kerr v. Hickenlooper. It’s an attack on a provision of the Colorado constitution called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Adopted by popular initiative in 1992, it's the strictest tax-limitation measure passed by the voters in any state. Despite its name, it has nothing to do with rights of individual taxpayers and everything to do with hamstringing state government. Under TABOR, no unit of government, from the legislature to local boards, can raise taxes or approve a new tax without a vote of the people. In addition, if existing taxes bring in revenue greater than "inflation plus the percentage change in state population" for the year previous, that "surplus" must be refunded to the taxpayers. In short, TABOR froze state government in its existing shape as of 1992, and left the legislature to flounder helplessly.

Obviously government doesn't like this restriction.

1751_Texan
03-16-2014, 09:55 AM
Yep, in fact that's where the OP article goes with this in the following case:



Obviously government doesn't like this restriction.

I think "government" does not like this type of restriction when the state's constitution and partical state government is still a representative democracy.

The question is if Colorado or any state has the option of changing thier constitution to become a direct democracy on state issues[or any other form of governance].

One issue, taxes, is not problematic for a direct democracy action...but Colorado legislation would come to a complete log jamb if the State became a democracy.

Chris
03-16-2014, 10:11 AM
I think "government" does not like this type of restriction when the state's constitution and partical state government is still a representative democracy.

The question is if Colorado or any state has the option of changing thier constitution to become a direct democracy on state issues[or any other form of governance].

One issue, taxes, is not problematic for a direct democracy action...but Colorado legislation would come to a complete log jamb if the State became a democracy.


Personally, on the CO initiative, I have mixed reactions. I like it that the people have a say in taxes but believe direct democracy the worst form of government.