Mid-Term Elections Swayed by Supreme Court

[Sandman]

The there is the whole argument that Abortion is not being outlawed. They just went from making it a federal decision to letting states decide what is proper for their state, which is the whole basis of how the federal government is supposed to work. They forget that the states are supposed to be in control of the feds, and not the feds in control of the states. That simple idea would change the whole dynamic of how our government works.

All valid observations.. (Kevin can address specifics).. we need to be aware that the states rights issue is being used by the GOP to avoid the “A” word.. we will hear more on this issue (from TV/radio talk show entertainers I’m sure) .

Just my opinion, I could be wrong..

[Scooter]

Article VI, clause 2.

Federal law trumps state law. Has right from the beginning. Fought a civil war over it. So no, states are not supposed to be in control of the feds. What each state decides when they choose to become a state is Article VI, clause 2. Yes, a confederacy of states with a limited federal government is what some back in 1776 envisioned but it did not come to be. "That simple idea" is simply not what the Constitution says and each state agreed to that language when they ratified the Constitution and became a state. Anything else is wishful thinking. Slavery proponents used the "states trump federal law" argument to justify that peculiar institution. It was used to justify segregation. It was used to justify denial of voting to women, to blacks. It was used to deny education to blacks. The Dixiecrats used it to run a nakedly racist platform. George Wallace declared segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever under that argument. It is a supremely bad argument to make.

If state law trumps federal law (and hence, the Constitution) then there are no Amendments to the Constitution a state is bound to obey. Freedom of religion? Gone. Free press? Gone. Your right to a firearm? Gone. Your right to due process? Gone. Your right against self-incrimination? Gone. Slavery? Still here. Women voting? Nope.

The Civil Rights Act? Nope. The Voting Rights Act? Nope. State would still be free to force blacks to get their food from a door in the alley behind the restaurant, to use designated water fountains, not be able to vote. You really don't want to make this argument.

The reason states are in control of the feds is because of the house and senate. When they lose control is when the President rules by fiat. Using executive orders and demands to have his will done. He can propose a bill, but it should be acted on by Congress, which is controlled by the states.
This really should also extend to agencies that legislate by policy.
So take something that is important to Utah. Bill Clinton declared the Grand Escalante wilderness area, without consultation with the state of Utah. This is not something he should have power to do. It should have been proposed to congress, which would have made legislation. That legislation would have gone through all the steps until it could be approved or denied by the president. Our current executive branch has entirely too much power and I don’t see anyone turning it back.

[Phillbo]

I could care less...


Just my opinion, I could be wrong..

[FredK]

Just in case one wonders about the number of executive orders.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/stat...ecutive-orders

[Dave Grubb]

Scooter wrote:

Our current executive branch has entirely too much power and I don’t see anyone turning it back.

Could that be to some degree brought about by the current polarized induced paralyses of Congress?

[Kevin]

The reason states are in control of the feds is because of the house and senate.

In the House, they do not vote by state, they vote individually by Congressional District. In the Senate, they do not cast votes by state either. The individual senators vote. The clerk calling the roll does not ask "How does NY vote?", the clerk calls the name of the individual representative. That's because states as such do not vote in either the House or the Senate. When you say that states should be in charge, that refers to state legislatures deciding to abide by or ignore the laws passed by Congress or the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Regarding the rest of your post, much authority has been voluntarily ceded to the President by Congress. I also have a problem with that. I don't think that your comment about agency powers is something I can agree with. The world is just too complex for all the areas that are covered by various agencies to be managed directly by the Congress and Senate. Programs that have been passed by Congress need a way to be implemented. Some delegation of power is required. Direct control by the House and Senate became too unwieldy over 150 years ago, so imagine what direct control now would entail. (the reference to 150 years ago is to the creation of the Department of Agriculture in 1862).

[UTAH]

I thought the number of EO's would increase substantially with time. Instead, we see them peak with FDR and decline since.

Fascinating.

Hunter

[Dave Grubb]

I thought the number of EO's would increase substantially with time. Instead, we see them peak with FDR and decline since.

Fascinating.

Hunter

Looking at that list again I now see that runup in EOs began with TR and continued to increase with each ensuing President until Truman.

[Truckman]

Looking at that list again I now see that runup in EOs began with TR and continued to increase with each ensuing President until Truman.

Additionally:

1789 to 1945 (Roosevelt) data includes "numbered" and "unnumbered" executive orders. 1945 (Truman) & 1967 (Johnson) data includes only numbered executive orders including those with letter designations (ex. Executive Order 9577-A).

...Ben

[Scooter]

In the House, they do not vote by state, they vote individually by Congressional District. In the Senate, they do not cast votes by state either. The individual senators vote. The clerk calling the roll does not ask "How does NY vote?", the clerk calls the name of the individual representative. That's because states as such do not vote in either the House or the Senate. When you say that states should be in charge, that refers to state legislatures deciding to abide by or ignore the laws passed by Congress or the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Regarding the rest of your post, much authority has been voluntarily ceded to the President by Congress. I also have a problem with that. I don't think that your comment about agency powers is something I can agree with. The world is just too complex for all the areas that are covered by various agencies to be managed directly by the Congress and Senate. Programs that have been passed by Congress need a way to be implemented. Some delegation of power is required. Direct control by the House and Senate became too unwieldy over 150 years ago, so imagine what direct control now would entail. (the reference to 150 years ago is to the creation of the Department of Agriculture in 1862).

They don’t vote as states, but they do vote as representatives of the state. That is why they are often referred to as the gentleman from Whatever State.

And true, things cannot be micromanaged by congress, but I think many of the departments overstep their bounds. When they go from to day to day management, and go to far reaching regulations, it is probably beyond the bounds of their authority.

[Kevin]

In the House, they represent only the district they were elected to serve, not the entire state.

My Congress critter represents me as a member of my Congressional District only. She is not answerable to people in any other District. Hence, she does not represent NY as such but rather, the people of NY's XXth Congressional District. She represents the PORTION of the state that resides in that District. She does not represent the state as a whole.

The Senate comes closer to representing the state as such. Stands to reason given how members of the Senate were originally chosen - by state legislatures. Article I, Section 3, which was modified by the 17th Amendment. But even here, each Senator represents the people of the state, not the state as an organized political body itself.

No one represents the interests of the State of NY in Congress. Each Representative or Senator represents the interests of the people of their elective district. NY as a state organism has very different interests and needs than do the people of the state of NY.

I think you are getting hung up on language. What I think you mean is that the Executive Branch should be controlled by the Legislative Branch, not that states control the feds.

[UTAH]

Each Representative or Senator represents the interests of the people of their elective district. NY as a state organism has very different interests and needs than do the people of the state of NY.

An excellent reminder of our political structure. And, I like it when it's presented that way.

Hunter