User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: What powers are the states missing and should take back from the feds?

  1. #1

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,267, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 58.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200775
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,928
    Points
    473,267
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,064
    Thanked 46,045x in 24,876 Posts
    Mentioned
    887 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post What powers are the states missing and should take back from the feds?

    Here's the question: What powers are the states missing and should take back from the federal government?

    Off hand - for one - the power to prevent the federal government from dumping refugees or immigrants on them.
    For two - how about the power to restrict information gathering on a state's citizens?




    Note: This is a tpf thread and I will ban anybody jetting off the reservation or starting a trolling thesis.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  2. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496580
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,590x in 94,419 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The entire benefits system should be at the state level. Nothing in the Constitution indicates that the states ceded that authority.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (02-25-2021),carolina73 (02-25-2021),DGUtley (02-25-2021)

  4. #3
    Points: 74,636, Level: 66
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 814
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314975
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,625
    Points
    74,636
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,092x in 12,286 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Here's the question: What powers are the states missing and should take back from the federal government?

    Off hand - for one - the power to prevent the federal government from dumping refugees or immigrants on them.
    For two - how about the power to restrict information gathering on a state's citizens?




    Note: This is a tpf thread and I will ban anybody jetting off the reservation or starting a trolling thesis.
    The immigration issue presents problems, any way you look at it. The federal government has exerted its Constitutional authority over immigration in several ways - some of which you may agree with, and other ways not so much. You may, as an example, agree with the federal government's insistence that federal laws regarding illegal immigration take precedence over state or local laws or policies; at the same time, you may - as in the example you gave - question the federal government's authority to decide where in the country refugees and immigrants will be settled. Either the immigration question falls within the jurisdiction of federal authorities or it doesn't - you can't have it both ways.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (02-25-2021),Peter1469 (02-25-2021)

  6. #4

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,267, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 58.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200775
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,928
    Points
    473,267
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,064
    Thanked 46,045x in 24,876 Posts
    Mentioned
    887 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    The immigration issue presents problems, any way you look at it. The federal government has exerted its Constitutional authority over immigration in several ways - some of which you may agree with, and other ways not so much. You may, as an example, agree with the federal government's insistence that federal laws regarding illegal immigration take precedence over state or local laws or policies; at the same time, you may - as in the example you gave - question the federal government's authority to decide where in the country refugees and immigrants will be settled. Either the immigration question falls within the jurisdiction of federal authorities or it doesn't - you can't have it both ways.
    Does control over the border constitutionally equate to the power constitutionally to mandate acceptance? I don't know. Your points are valid. It seems that the feds deposit refugees punitively. You have someone in DC mandating that these little farm towns accept (and pay for) these refugees.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Standing Wolf (02-25-2021)

  8. #5
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496580
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,590x in 94,419 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It should probably be amended to update federal authority. I would be worried about how that would turn out, but then the government ignores it anyway....

    Art. 1, sec. 8, US Const:

    Section 8

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    To provide and maintain a Navy;
    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (02-25-2021)

  10. #6
    Points: 114,212, Level: 82
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 2,438
    Overall activity: 64.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    RMNIXON's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    30562
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    30,808
    Points
    114,212
    Level
    82
    Thanks Given
    31,843
    Thanked 30,556x in 17,992 Posts
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This subject is so expansive we could post for days and never hit upon everything. The abuse of the commerce clause for starters.

    As for the immigration issue, what we are admitting is a failed duty to be responsible at the Federal level. Thus a State or local entity that is willing to defend the local border and enforce current immigration laws are told they cannot. And currently it is the left who are hypocritical by allowing Sanctuary laws and other unconstitutional measures to protect illegals from Federal Laws. And also interfering with those authorities like ICE willing to enforce same.

    But the root of the problem is that Senators and Representatives are far more loyal to Party than to State interests. If the Democrats want to flood the country with alleged refugee immigrants then who cares where they land unless some future election is marginal.

  11. #7
    Points: 74,636, Level: 66
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 814
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314975
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,625
    Points
    74,636
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,092x in 12,286 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Does control over the border constitutionally equate to the power constitutionally to mandate acceptance? I don't know. Your points are valid. It seems that the feds deposit refugees punitively. You have someone in DC mandating that these little farm towns accept (and pay for) these refugees.
    If the settlement actions include an unfunded mandate, that is, if not a different story, at least a twist on the original. As long as the federal government takes full financial responsibility, I don't see that a state has any standing to deny residence within its borders of someone who is, citizen or not, in this country legally.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (02-25-2021)

  13. #8
    Points: 143,765, Level: 91
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 2,885
    Overall activity: 79.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43659
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,490
    Points
    143,765
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,067
    Thanked 43,664x in 28,251 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The states should not get anything from the Federal Government. That means you can shrink government by 1/3 and end all redistribution.

    There is no reason for the Federal Government to have any part in welfare, unemployment, education (except measurement/comparison), state roadway projects....
    Remove the interference of the Federal government in issues that do not have effect across state lines. Once you do that then you can combine several cabinet departments.
    Then start making the move to privatization of SS. The return on what you put in is terrible for producers. It is just redistribution to the non or low-producers.
    add up 12.4% of your pay over a life time and then calculate how much that would be at 65. Then add compound interest at what simple CD rates over your career. You will fall out of love with Social Security. Treat it like an IRA and you can still mandate the investments from every pay check, because most Americans would never save.
    Make FEMA nothing but a coordinating facility with no spending, just like it was the day before Katrina.

    There is absolutely no reason for Americans to send their money to the Federal Government, let them take out administrative costs; only to send it back to the states. Then the states take their administrative cut and send it back to the localities.

    Then the blue states will no longer mandate spending for the red states, so they can complain that they pay more taxes.

    The Federal government is not without use but they have overreached in political power grabs.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to carolina73 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (02-25-2021),Peter1469 (02-25-2021)

  15. #9

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,267, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 58.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200775
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,928
    Points
    473,267
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,064
    Thanked 46,045x in 24,876 Posts
    Mentioned
    887 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    If the settlement actions include an unfunded mandate, that is, if not a different story, at least a twist on the original. As long as the federal government takes full financial responsibility, I don't see that a state has any standing to deny residence within its borders of someone who is, citizen or not, in this country legally.
    Well, they don't pay for them. The feds do not take "full fiscal responsibility" - these refugees devastate the budgets of local school districts, Housing projects, DJFS, etc. Should the feds have the ability to punitively dump refugees to change the character, nature, culture etc of areas? (Not saying that it does, but it is alleged that it does. - I haven't looked at it.)
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (02-25-2021),RMNIXON (02-25-2021)

  17. #10
    Points: 143,765, Level: 91
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 2,885
    Overall activity: 79.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43659
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,490
    Points
    143,765
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,067
    Thanked 43,664x in 28,251 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Well, they don't pay for them. The feds do not take "full fiscal responsibility" - these refugees devastate the budgets of local school districts, Housing projects, DJFS, etc. Should the feds have the ability to punitively dump refugees to change the character, nature, culture etc of areas? (Not saying that it does, but it is alleged that it does. - I haven't looked at it.)
    And there we go again with reasons to expand the Federal Government and give it a reason for more redistribution.

    The Federal government has one job with illegal immigration and that is to not allow them to ever come in illegally. There is no reason why a state should not be able to eject illegal aliens at least outside their borders. When they get tired of being ejected then they will go home or all end up in California who will die under the weight. That should be their problem.

    I do not think that you can start making exceptions without creating the same federal creep that we have seen over the last 120 years.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts