Powers not given feds are reserved by states

[henryclay]

In another power struggle over the constitution, the feds, (specifically Senate Democrats through Miz Sebilius who heads up DHHS), are telling Indiana it cannot defund public money from abortions inside Indiana.

The federal dollars are not allowed to be used for abortions, but supporters of the restrictions argue that any federal funding to Planned Parenthood indirectly supports abortion services.

www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/senate-democrats-push-back-on-indiana-abortion-law-20110526
And:
www.lifenews.com/2011/06/01/indiana-reps-tell-sebelius-to-ok-planned-parenthood-de-funding/
But:
www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=13035

The question arises: Do the states have any plenary powers of their own, or must they play "May I" with everything they do?

[cereb]

Awww gezzz, I hate it when that happens.

[fairlycrazy23]

Not going to specificlly address the abortion issue, but this is one way the federal government exercises it's powers beyond what is Constitutionally granted, by withholding money it has taken from its citizens from going back to the states. Sure under the 10th amendment you are free to exercise your a rights and raise the speed limit to 99mph but you won't get any federal highway funds.

I think this is actually illegal because of the chilling effect it has on States legally using there Constitutionally mandated powers.

[maui1]

why does any gov't have anything to do with a personal decision? we get into trouble when someone or some gov't wants to tell others what to do.

my concern for state regulation is 1/50th my concern for fed regulation, as anyone can go over state lines to do what they want done, but i still have concern over why someone would feel they have the power to tell others what to do.

[Deleted]

Jun 3, 2011 9:34:54 GMT -5 cereb said:

Awww gezzz, I hate it when that happens.

You hate in when the states try and do things that the Federal Government actually has no Constitutional power to do? Interesting.

[cereb]

"You hate in when the states try and do things that the Federal Government actually has no Constitutional power to do? Interesting. "



Actually, I am willing to bet that the fed had every constitutional right to do as they are doing. There's this funny thing called the "commerce clause".


I'm just finding it pretty hilarious that the anti-choice crowd isn't getting there own way on this one so so they are going to stomp their little feet and scream about the Constitution. The Irony is delicious.

[fairlycrazy23]

I don't see how this is commerce among several states or even two states.

[cereb]

And it may not be. I just threw that out there. Bottom line is the fed attaches all kinds of rules and regs with federal monies given to states under a host of circumstances. This just happens to be one of them, Highway funding, medicare/medicaid, snap benefits, and so on all are federally funded to the states and have stipulations for their use.

[cme1201]

Jun 3, 2011 9:51:33 GMT -5 cereb said:

"You hate in when the states try and do things that the Federal Government actually has no Constitutional power to do? Interesting. "



Actually, I am willing to bet that the fed had every constitutional right to do as they are doing. There's this funny thing called the "commerce clause".


I'm just finding it pretty hilarious that the anti-choice crowd isn't getting there own way on this one so so they are going to stomp their little feet and scream about the Constitution. The Irony is delicious.

In 1995, the Rehnquist Court again restricted the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Lopez v. United States. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The defendant in this case was charged with carrying a handgun to school in violation of the federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The defendant argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in local schools, while the government claimed that this fell under the Commerce Clause since possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions. The Chief Justice rejected this argument, and held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. He declined to further expand the Commerce Clause, writing that “[t]o do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

The federal government’s power was further restricted in the landmark case of Morrison v. United States, which overturned the Violence Against Women Act for its reliance on the Commerce Clause in making domestic violence against women a federal crime. 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Taken together, Lopez and Morrison have made clear that while the Court is still willing to recognize a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, if it does not find activity substantial enough to constitute interstate commerce it will not accept Congress's stated reason for federal regulation.

[cereb]

hmmm Ok, but I bet the fed still has the right to do what they are doing in this instance. We shall wait and see what washes out.

[cme1201]

Jun 3, 2011 10:07:22 GMT -5 cereb said:

hmmm Ok, but I bet the fed still has the right to do what they are doing in this instance. We shall wait and see what washes out.

Of course the Fed has the "right" to do it, the question that will need to be placed before the SCOTUS is if the feds "right" is infact legal.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 3, 2011 10:07:22 GMT -5 cereb said:

hmmm Ok, but I bet the fed still has the right to do what they are doing in this instance. We shall wait and see what washes out.

I agree, the federal government has the right to spend its money how it sees fit (as long as it is constitutional, but we all know that doesn't mean anything)

However, I think it could be argued that the Federal government with holding federal funds from the states who are trying to use there Constitutional powers (which is basically everything except the narrowly defined and enumerated powers given up by the states/people to the Federal Government) could be judged as violating the 10th amendment. I do think the argument would likely fail.

The real Constitutional problem is that the Federal Government doesn't even have the authority to fund planned parenthood, I can't find which enumerated power this would fall under, funding an activity like Planned Parenthood for example, should solely fall to the states.

[cereb]

Jun 3, 2011 10:14:32 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Jun 3, 2011 10:07:22 GMT -5 cereb said:

hmmm Ok, but I bet the fed still has the right to do what they are doing in this instance. We shall wait and see what washes out.

I agree, the federal government has the right to spend its money how it sees fit.
However, I think it could be argued that the Federal government with holding federal funds from the states who are trying to use there Constitutional powers (which is basically everything except the narrowly defined and enumerated powers given up by the states/people to the Federal Government) could be judged as violating the 10th amendment. I do think the argument would likely fail.

The precedent it would set would be far reaching and catastrophic.

[cereb]

"And actually the real Constitutional problem is that the Federal Government doesn't even have the authority to fund planned parenthood,"




How so?

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 3, 2011 10:19:47 GMT -5 cereb said:

"And actually the real Constitutional problem is that the Federal Government doesn't even have the authority to fund planned parenthood,"
How so?

Funding a clinic is not an Enumerated power of the Federal Government and it is not necessary or proper for carrying out any of its enumerated powers; providing medical care to citizens is clearly a States responsibility under our Constitution.

[cereb]

"Funding a clinic is not an Enumerated power of the Federal Government and it is not a necessary or proper for carrying out any of its enumerated powers, providing medical care to citizens is clearly a States responsibility under our Constitution."


Ok, but then how do you explain the federal funding of individual states department of public health clinics for methadone treatment and vaccines?

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 3, 2011 10:25:24 GMT -5 cereb said:

"Funding a clinic is not an Enumerated power of the Federal Government and it is not a necessary or proper for carrying out any of its enumerated powers, providing medical care to citizens is clearly a States responsibility under our Constitution."

Ok, but then how do you explain the federal funding of individual states department of public health clinics for methadone treatment and vaccines?

I didn't mean to suggest that only Planned Parrenthood was unconstitutional, I only used it for example because it was mentioned in this thread, however, all of that other funding would be unconstitutional as well.

It is not constitutional for the Federal Government to take money at ultimate threat of force from Citizens in State A and give it to Citizens in State B.

[cereb]

"I didn't mean to suggest that only Planned Parrenthood was unconstitutional, I only used it for example because it was mentioned in this thread, however, all of that other funding would be unconstitutional as well."


I see. Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me, I appreciate it.

[handyman2]

Some legal scholars question whether the government has any authority in the field of healthcare except when it becomes part of providing for those in a standing federal army.
Don't know enough to agree or not to agree with that. i remember this was argued back in the 50's in governing regulations of insurance companies.
The federal government is like an inch worm, taking a piece at a time of states rights.

[henryclay]

It is taking some long stretch of reason to equate the chartered services of Planned Parenthood and abortion to providing medical services. And public money is already prohibited from being used to provide abortions. What the Democrats in Congress are doing, througfht DHHS, is clearly making an end run around that prohibition. And unless I watched the wrong news releases recentlky, the entire move to defund Planned Parenthood was over the emphasis they are putting on abortions insttead of providing the services they are chartered to provide.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 3, 2011 10:33:13 GMT -5 henryclay said:

It is taking some long stretch of reason to equate the chartered services of Planned Parenthood and abortion to providing medical services. And public money is already prohibited from being used to provide abortions. What the Democrats in Congress are doing, througfht DHHS, is clearly making an end run around that prohibition. And unless I watched the wrong news releases recentlky, the entire move to defund Planned Parenthood was over the emphasis they are putting on abortions insttead of providing the services they are chartered to provide.

Not directly related to states rights, but if planned parent as they indicated, don't really do very many abortions, then maybe in order to provide what they indicated are there primary functions (everything except abortions) they should split the abortion services off into there own separate entities.

[cereb]

Jun 3, 2011 10:31:03 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Some legal scholars question whether the government has any authority in the field of healthcare except when it becomes part of providing for those in a standing federal army.
Don't know enough to agree or not to agree with that. i remember this was argued back in the 50's in governing regulations of insurance companies.
The federal government is like an inch worm, taking a piece at a time of states rights.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the feds providing monies for things like a methadone clinic or needle exchange program. Or planned parenthood for that matter. It has become painfully obvious to me that the leaders of some states will cut off the noses of their own citizenry to push goofy religious agendas.

Women have a right to choice, drug addicts need treatment, and needle exchanges reduces the spread of AIDS and HEP. Kids need vaccines. Pretty simple stuff really.

[cereb]

Planned Parenthood also provides a good deal more services than abortion.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...it has become painfully obvious to me that the leaders of some states will cut off the noses of their own citizenry to push goofy irreligious agendas...

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 3, 2011 10:37:41 GMT -5 cereb said:

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the feds providing monies for things like a methadone clinic or needle exchange program. Or planned parenthood for that matter. It has become painfully obvious to me that the leaders of some states will cut off the noses of their own citizenry to push goofy religious agendas.

Women have a right to choice, drug addicts need treatment, and needle exchanges reduces the spread of AIDS and HEP. Kids need vaccines. Pretty simple stuff really.

It is far easier to move to a State that more aligns with your beliefs or to effect changes in an individual state, than to leave the US.

If all that stuff is simple it should be done at the state level, individual states, have far more power than the Federal Government

The reasoning you are using is that because it is "good" we should ignore the Constitution, the problem is what happens when it is something you don't think is good, the precedent has already been set and it will be more difficult to stop.

[cereb]

"The reasoning you are using is that because it is "good" we should ignore the Constitution, the problem is what happens when it is something you don't think is good, the precedent has already been set and it will be more difficult to stop."


And I completely agree with you on the matter however, here we are. I just put my personal view out there.

[maui1]

Bottom line is the fed attaches all kinds of rules and regs with federal monies given to states under a host of circumstances. This just happens to be one of them, Highway funding, medicare/medicaid, snap benefits, and so on all are federally funded to the states and have stipulations for their use.

a good reason to limit the funding of the fed govt, to limit it to its basic functions

the federal government has the right to spend its money how it sees fit

there-in lies the problem..........the gov't does not have money, we the tax payers have money. our gov't has grown so much as to become bigger than the entity feeding it.