Are States Fighting Back Against Federal Overreach with Sovereignty Assertions?

  • News
  • Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date
  • Tags
    States
In summary, some state lawmakers are fighting against the federal stimulus bill by sponsoring resolutions asserting state sovereignty, in effect giving them the right to ignore federal laws they deem unconstitutional. This has sparked debates over the role of the federal government and the autonomy of states. Some lawmakers have also expressed concern over the potential consequences of taking stimulus money, while others view it as necessary for struggling states. There is also discussion of the future of political parties, with some hoping for a stronger conservative party and others looking towards the Libertarian party as a potential alternative.
  • #1
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
21,870
6,271
Some state lawmakers fighting federal stimulus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_re_us/states_rights_stimulus [Broken]
CONCORD, N.H. – For small-government die-hards, the $787 billion economic stimulus bill recently passed by Congress isn't a life saver. It's the last straw.

Lawmakers across the country are sponsoring resolutions — most of them only symbolic — asserting state sovereignty, in effect the right to ignore any federal law or policies they deem unconstitutional, including the stimulus bill, the No Child Left Behind Act and any new assault rifle ban.

In New Hampshire, the House is scheduled to vote on Republican state Rep. Daniel Itse's resolution Wednesday. Supporters are planning a rally at the Statehouse before the vote.

"I think that the specter of some assaults on our liberty have become so real and immediate that there is a reaction," Itse said.

Lawmakers in at least 15 states are sponsoring similar resolutions. They say they're fighting back against decades of federal overreach, culminating in the stimulus package.

. . . .
It will be interesting to see where this goes. Some local prognosticator who publishes something called "Trends", has predicted the break up of the US. I'm sure he and others will use this to fuel their fires.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Lawmakers in at least 15 states are sponsoring similar resolutions. They say they're fighting back against decades of federal overreach, culminating in the stimulus package.
So they aren't just cynically maneuvering for more handouts for their particular state then?
 
  • #3
LOL, then don't take the money! If so many States weren't broke and over budget, we wouldn't have this problem. You can't ask for bailout money and then complain about Federal intervention.

As for the breakup of the union, please, this is just more from the Limbaugh types and other cranks.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Ivan Seeking said:
LOL, then don't take the money! If so many States weren't broke and over budget, we wouldn't have this problem. You can't ask for bailout money and then complain about Federal intervention.

I agree with that, but there's still a problem. If a state chooses not to take the money and go along, the fed gov't will take money from that state in order to give it to the states that do go along. This is how the fed gov't gets their way in areas where they don't have legitimate constitutional jurisdiction.
How often do Bill Maher and Pat Robertson agree on politics?
They should agree quite often, since they're both delusional morons.:bugeye:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Bobby Jindal says that he will reject any stimulus money that is earmarked for extending unemployment benefits because it will cost businesses in his state more money to maintain the extensions when the Federal money is gone.
 
  • #6
Al68 said:
I agree with that, but there's still a problem. If a state chooses not to take the money and go along, the fed gov't will take money out of that state in order to give it to the states that do go along. This is how the fed gov't gets their way in areas where they don't have legitimate constitutional jurisdiction.

I agree and I've never liked that - I am a huge fan of State's autonomy. But as long as they take Federal money... Remember the golden rule: The man with the gold makes the rules.

Hopefully China won't figure that out for awhile.
 
  • #7
Al68 said:
They should agree quite often, since they're both delusional morons.:)

Perhaps, but the Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Rush. Personally, I hope Limbaugh remains the head of the Republican party. That will be the death of the them.
 
  • #8
It would make sense that the problems of nationalism would be remedied my the dissolution of the nation.
 
  • #9
turbo-1 said:
Bobby Jindal says that he will reject any stimulus money that is earmarked for extending unemployment benefits because it will cost businesses in his state more money to maintain the extensions when the Federal money is gone.

Of course he isn't going to refuse the other truckloads of Fed money.

Jindal , what a joke! Did you note that bashing he took over the implication that he hasn't received tons of money for Katrina recovery.
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking said:
Perhaps, but the Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Rush. Personally, I hope Limbaugh remains the head of the Republican party. That will be the death of the them.
I hate to agree with you, but I do. If the party were dissolved, it's likely that many of the constituents would make their way over to the Libertarian party, whose values, I feel, are greatly needed these days. Both the Republican Party and Democratic party seem to preach too much dependence on the government, which is why my vote hasn't "counted" in the last two elections.
 
  • #11
Scuzzle said:
I hate to agree with you, but I do. If the party were dissolved, it's likely that many of the constituents would make their way over to the Libertarian party, whose values, I feel, are greatly needed these days.

I agree. In fact Bob Barr has even been reborn as a Libertarian - this is where many old-time conservatives are going. We need a good and strong conservative party, but not a bunch of nuts. [In the past I couldn't stand Barr, but I liked what he had to say that last time I saw him].
 
  • #12
Note that the Dems are falling all over themselves trying to reenforce the notion that Rush runs the Republican Party. Because of his big fat ego, Rush is playing right into their hands.
 
  • #13
Ivan Seeking said:
I agree. In fact Bob Barr has even been reborn as a Libertarian - this is where many old-time conservatives are going. We need a good and strong conservative party, but not a bunch of nuts. [In the past I couldn't stand Barr, but I liked what he had to say that last time I saw him].
My hope is that the foolishness of the Republicans over the last 8 years will combine with the inevitable foolishness of both parties throughout the Obama presidency, and the Libertarians will have a strong enough position to garner enough of the vote to get themselves noticed. With the obvious European-esque socialist track the Democrats are taking this time around, I think it may just happen.

I'm hopeful anyway.
 
  • #14
Foolishness? Obama is responding to a national and international crisis. He may or may not be doing the right things, but bold action is almost certainly required. We came within days of a complete collapse of the global financial system. Obama did not create the crisis that we face. We can thank Reaganomics and the Republican model for that one - in particular, we can thank people like Limbaugh and his supporters.

As a former Republican and Reagan supporter, I too have to accept part of the blame. I once bought into the trickle-down sham. It sounded great, but unfortunately all of the money that was supposed to trickle down to us trickled down to China instead.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Ivan Seeking said:
He may or may not be doing the right things, but bold action is almost certainly required.

Nobody said foolish actions couldn't be bold.:yuck:

We need more boldness in government, just in the other (libertarian) direction.

Despite what is heard in the media, government interventionism caused the problems we have now.
 
  • #16
Yes, foolishness. I agree with you on the severity of the situation, and the need to act quickly, but band-aid fixes that many renowned economists spoke out against are not the answer. The answer in a word is: deflation. We have to allow the economy to shrink before it explodes and collapses in on itself, and you don't do that by creating debt on top of debt. Reaganomics is definitely at fault here, but you need to allow for the possibility that Keynesian/Rooseveltian economics are just as much at blame.
 
  • #17
Al68 said:
Nobody said foolish actions couldn't be bold.:yuck:

We need more boldness in government, just in the other (libertarian) direction.

Despite what is heard in the media, government interventionism caused the problems we have now.

What caused the problems that we face were greed and a lack of oversight. It is a case of too little government leading to chaos. The credit crisis and the housing crisis are the result of too little regulation.

We trusted the markets as the Republicans have always wanted and this is where it got us. End of story. Reagan's legacy is now complete.
 
  • #18
Scuzzle said:
Yes, foolishness. I agree with you on the severity of the situation, and the need to act quickly, but band-aid fixes that many renowned economists spoke out against are not the answer. The answer in a word is: deflation. We have to allow the economy to shrink before it explodes and collapses in on itself, and you don't do that by creating debt on top of debt. Reaganomics is definitely at fault here, but you need to allow for the possibility that Keynesian/Rooseveltian economics are just as much at blame.

From what I understand, Obama is taking the advice of the best economists. In fact many think the bailout is too small. Your solution would be to allow another great depression at the expense of every family in the country. Experts who study that period of time maintain that the worst of the Depression could have been avoided through action like that taken now; that if anything, Roosevelt didn't do enough. THAT is why WWII helped to pull us out: It was a massive federal spending program. Note also that after this massive spending program that propelled us to levels of debt never seen before [122% of GDP], we experienced a long period of growth that made possible the highest standard of living in the world.

Also, Obama is using this as an opportunity to rebuild America. If we are to compete in years to come we must do these things: Rebuild roads and bridges; get health care costs under control; gain energy independence; forge new industries [green industries in this case]; provide hs internet to the entire country; improve our public transportation systems; update and rebuild the public education system; prevent the collapse of State services, as in California, and so on. Obama has his eye and the ball and is trying to transform a crisis into an opportunity to rebuild the country.

He has big ideas - Earth'shaking in their magnitude and scope - and there is big risk, but I don't see that we have any choice. Thank God we have someone who is willing to step up to the plate before it's too late [if it's not already too late].
 
Last edited:
  • #19
I think this is much more complex than you understand. This is more a question of philosophy and morality than it is economics, and I don't currently have the time to invest in a conversation of that magnitude.

Sorry to leave you hanging.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Ivan Seeking said:
We trusted the markets as the Republicans have always wanted and this is where it got us. End of story. Reagan's legacy is now complete.
I enthusiastically supported Reagan, mostly because he promised to shrink the Federal government. I shouldn't have been that stupid. During his first term, the size of the government increased by 25%, and spending increased while revenues dropped in part due to tax-cuts for the rich that were going to "trickle down" and make us all prosperous. What a load of crap! The Democrats could have run a mangy dog against him for the 2nd term, and I would have voted for the dog.
 
  • #21
What about tax cuts for everyone? That's about the only thing the government hasn't tried. They've taxed us into the ground, to where the average American is "relieved" of 25% (3 months/year worth) of their income. They've also given tax-cuts to corporate America and wealthy America. Neither has been very effective.

I'd like to see tax cuts across the board. A fixed percentage for all of America. No one person should pay out a higher percentage of their earnings than another simply because they "have more money to spare". Of course, this would lead to smaller government, so it will likely never happen of their own volition. You might notice that as much as we are asked to sacrifice, the gesture is never reciprocated.
 
  • #22
Scuzzle said:
I think this is much more complex than you understand. This is more a question of philosophy and morality than it is economics, and I don't currently have the time to invest in a conversation of that magnitude.

Sorry to leave you hanging.

I think you just went over a cliff. This is about mathematics, not philosophy.

It is a matter of a brilliant guy with big ideas being surrounded by teams of brilliant people. We have experts in many fields giving their all to save this country using the best information available. They may or may not make the best choices, but they are the best of the best. Unless or until I see something that betrays my trust, I see this as one of those rare times when one has to have faith and trust our leaders to do the right thing. They will have to answer for their actions on election day. By then we will know which direction this is going.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Ivan Seeking said:
What caused the problems that we face were greed and a lack of oversight. It is a case of too little government leading to chaos. The credit crisis and the housing crisis are the result of too little regulation.

We trusted the markets as the Republicans have always wanted and this is where it got us. End of story. Reagan's legacy is now complete.

That's all just utterly false. This problem not only wouldn't have happened with a free economy, it couldn't have happened.

Is it greed that caused banks to make loans to people they knew could not afford to pay them back? Or was it Democrats twisting their arms? Mortgages for 100% of the home's value, 125% 2nd mortgages, no down payment. Closing costs rolled in. Bad credit. Too much debt already. Etc., etc. Banks didn't make these toxic loans before Democrats started turning the screws. And they claimed that anyone who opposed this practice just didn't care about poor people.

Then they have the nerve to try to convince people it was the free market that caused the problem. Why not? Their constituency will believe anything they're told, no matter how obviously false it is to anyone who bothers to check out the facts.

Of course they can rely with certainty that their constituents only listen to them. I have yet to meet a Democrat that knows both sides to the economic issues. They know two sides, the Democrat side, and the convoluted misrepresentation by Democrats of the Republican side. The phrase "trickle down economics" is a perfect example of this. Like there are people who's stated position is that gov't should give money to rich people so it will "trickle down" to the rest of us. Yeah, right. Who could believe that's the position of the other side? Delusion? Blinders?

Sorry, sometimes I just can't resist ranting. It's just frustrating to see the "mainstream" media completely misrepresent the free market side of the issues, while those watching or reading assume they are seeing two sides when they are not.
 
  • #24
Ivan Seeking said:
I think you just went over a cliff. This is about mathematics, not philosophy.

It is a matter of a brilliant guy with big ideas being surrounded by teams of brilliant people. We have experts in many fields giving their all to save this country using the best information available. They may or may not make the best choices, but they are the best of the best.
I think that's a mighty unreasonable assumption to make. History has shown that presidents are much more likely to consult economists who follow their same line of thinking than they are to consult economists they don't agree with. This is evidenced by the fact that for the last 60 years presidents and the government have almost always chosen Keynesian economics, despite Hayek's economic ideals having never been tested on a nationwide scale. Meanwhile, we are under a constant exposure to a boom and bust system whose hold will never weaken as long as government gets bigger and taxes go up.

Universal tax cuts are such a simple idea. More money in the hands of everyone so that the public can save or spend it on consumer goods, which would create a level of stimulation for the economy that stimulus packages could never match. All this would require is smaller government and less military spending. And therein lies the rub.
 
  • #25
Al68 said:
Is it greed that caused banks to make loans to people they knew could not afford to pay them back? Or was it Democrats twisting their arms? Mortgages for 100% of the home's value, 125% 2nd mortgages, no down payment. Closing costs rolled in. Bad credit. Too much debt already. Etc., etc. Banks didn't make these toxic loans before Democrats started turning the screws. And they claimed that anyone who opposed this practice just didn't care about poor people.
Can you back any of this up with facts? It's the evil Democrats who forced the banks to make stupid loans? Was it the evil Democrats who told the banks to bundle these toxic assets and sell them to investors? There is plenty to dislike about our two-party system, and about the political tactics of the major parties, and demonizing Democrats isn't a sign that you've got much of handle on that. The banks and investment firms have been pumping money into Washington (on both sides) demanding deregulation. They got their way, and the taxpayers take it in the neck while they collect their huge "retention incentives" (not bonuses anymore) and laugh all the way to the (offshore) bank.
 
  • #26
Scuzzle said:
I think that's a mighty unreasonable assumption to make. History has shown that presidents are much more likely to consult economists who follow their same line of thinking than they are to consult economists they don't agree with. This is evidenced by the fact that for the last 60 years presidents and the government have almost always chosen Keynesian economics, despite Hayek's economic ideals having never been tested on a nationwide scale. Meanwhile, we are under a constant exposure to a boom and bust system whose hold will never weaken as long as government gets bigger and taxes go up.

Universal tax cuts are such a simple idea. More money in the hands of everyone so that the public can save or spend it on consumer goods, which would create a level of stimulation for the economy that stimulus packages could never match. All this would require is smaller government and less military spending. And therein lies the rub.

Modern socialists are so ate up with socialism they they don't even realize that it's a political philosophy that not everyone shares, or they just pretend that to avoid the need to explain themselves. They don't even call themselves socialist anymore, and even pretend they're not, while sharing the exact same core beliefs.

And they gather up Marxist economists and pretend that there is no philosophy involved, just economists at work. Gimme a break! :yuck:
 
  • #27
turbo-1 said:
Can you back any of this up with facts? It's the evil Democrats who forced the banks to make stupid loans? Was it the evil Democrats who told the banks to bundle these toxic assets and sell them to investors?

Yes. It was. And the banks were told (by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that if they didn't have a certain percentage of these bad loans bundled with their good ones, they wouldn't take any of them. That's the only reason banks made these bad loans. Otherwise Freddie and Fannie would not do business with them. And Freddie and Fannie were the majority of the mortgage business buying up notes from banks.

Obviously, Fannie and Freddie could only keep this up for so long, then they went bust. That stuck the banks with the toxic notes with no one to sell them to. The banks that were accused of not caring about poor people (didn't go along with Democrats) did fine, and are still doing fine. The ones that went along with the Dems stupid plan to "help poor people buy houses they can't afford" had problems.

All of this is publicly available for anyone to look up themselves on the net. You should not take my word for it. The law that caused these problems is the "Community Reinvestment Act" (expanded in early 90's). Sounds innocent doesn't it?
 
  • #28
Al68 said:
Modern socialists are so ate up with socialism they they don't even realize that it's a political philosophy that not everyone shares, or they just pretend that to avoid the need to explain themselves. They don't even call themselves socialist anymore, and even pretend they're not, while sharing the exact same core beliefs.

And they gather up Marxist economists and pretend that there is no philosophy involved, just economists at work. Gimme a break! :yuck:
Years ago, when I first came to this realization, I was completely heartbroken. Then, I went through stages of denial, and then extreme activism, before I ultimately realized that all I can do is attempt to live my own life and maintain individuality. The realization that socialists have become the masters and commanders is a necessarily important one to come to, as it will teach you a morality whose strength is unrivaled, which will help you get past all of the petty concerns of the "norm", and reach a level of happiness that is uncompared.
 
  • #29
Al68 said:
Yes. It was. And the banks were told (by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that if they didn't have a certain percentage of these bad loans bundled with their good ones, they wouldn't take any of them. That's the only reason banks made these bad loans. Otherwise Freddie and Fannie would not do business with them. And Freddie and Fannie were the majority of the mortgage business buying up notes from banks.

Obviously, Fannie and Freddie could only keep this up for so long, then they went bust. That stuck the banks with the toxic notes with no one to sell them to. The banks that were accused of not caring about poor people (didn't go along with Democrats) did fine, and are still doing fine. The ones that went along with the Dems stupid plan to "help poor people buy houses they can't afford" had problems.

All of this is publicly available for anyone to look up themselves on the net. You should not take my word for it. The law that caused these problems is the "Community Reinvestment Act" (expanded in early 90's). Sounds innocent doesn't it?
Please provide citations (not flak-job GOP stuff like Limbaugh) to back up your assertions that Democrats forced the banks to make unsafe loans. Predatory lending has been rampant for the last decade or so, and your claim that the Democrats forced the banks to engage in such practices is a bit thin, since the Democrats have been out of power for years, and after re-taking Congress in the last 2 years of W's term, lacked the votes to get ANYTHING through against Republican opposition. Sounds like you've been listening to too much Rush and Fox. (And actually believing it - scary!)
 
  • #30
Not to be insulting, but you are dishing out the typical liberal talking points. Both of you are arguing under the belief that banks are to blame. Everyone is an end in himself. Don't toss around words like "exploited" and "predatory" when the people who accepted the loan agreements had every bit of the fine print in front of them. There is no concession for laziness or ignorance. No matter how much someone pressures you to sign something without reading, you are the one to ultimately make the decision. And if they are able to convince you to sign away your livelihood without reading the rules, that says just as much about how weak and pathetic you are as it does about how "predatory" the lenders were.

Deregulation shmeregulation. Let's talk about personal responsibility.

Edit: In other words, this is a morality issue. This is a problem with America's mindset, not just the financial district's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
turbo-1 said:
Please provide citations (not flak-job GOP stuff like Limbaugh) to back up your assertions that Democrats forced the banks to make unsafe loans. Predatory lending has been rampant for the last decade or so, and your claim that the Democrats forced the banks to engage in such practices is a bit thin, since the Democrats have been out of power for years, and after re-taking Congress in the last 2 years of W's term, lacked the votes to get ANYTHING through against Republican opposition. Sounds like you've been listening to too much Rush and Fox. (And actually believing it - scary!)
Dude I provided the name of the Act and when is was amended. It's up to you to do your own research to find the truth. You should not take my word for anything.

Democrats didn't actually force the banks to do this, like I said, they bribed them into it with Fanny and Freddie.

And Rush and Fox have nothing to do with whether this is true or not. Neither do CBS, NBC, or ABC. You can look it up for yourself, or you can just decide to believe someone else. Personally, I trust no-one.

I explained what I know to be true, not what I expect you to believe just because I said it. It is easy to verify whether or not what I've said is true. It's your choice whether or not to bother doing it.

Edit: The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 was actually the name of the Act that greatly expanded the provisions in the Community Reinvestment Act. According to Fannie Mae's website: "it established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas." That's a self-serving way of saying get banks to make bad loans. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/charter.jhtml [Broken]

This is the text of the law, including effective dates of each part: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-2515.html [Broken]

And if you believe Rush and Fox conspired to write webpages for fdic.gov :rolleyes:, you could easily find many sources for the text of the law and applicable regulations (greatly expanded by Clinton without congress).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Scuzzle said:
Not to be insulting, but you are dishing out the typical liberal talking points. Both of you are arguing under the belief that banks are to blame. Everyone is in end in himself. Don't toss around words like "exploited" and "predatory" when the people who accepted the loan agreements had every bit of the fine print in front of them. There is no concession for laziness or ignorance. No matter how much someone pressures you to sign something without reading, you are the one to ultimately make the decision. And if they are able to convince you to sign away your livelihood without reading the rules, that says just as much about how weak and pathetic you are as it does about how "predatory" the lenders were.

Deregulation shmeregulation. Let's talk about personal responsibility.

Edit: In other words, this is a morality issue. This is a problem with America's mindset, not just the financial district's.
Thanks for all the insults. I terminated my relationship with a bank about 10 years back after learning about how they got people (generally older black folks in the south) to re-finance at rates that ballooned rapidly so they could foreclose on them. And my wife and I have not had a loan, nor any interest payments, for about 20 years now. Banks have been sucking gullible people into the real-estate boom promising that their loans will be affordable and that the values of the properties will continue to rise. That's crap!

I am far more fiscally conservative than any Republican I know. Since Reagan, the Neo-cons who hijacked the Republican party have concentrated on deregulating corporations and privatizing corporate profits while socializing corporate losses and dumping them onto common people. This is not a secret.
 
  • #33
Is it the fault of the banks that the people they are sucking in are gullible?

Humans are not gullible by nature, Americans are gullible by design. I argue that the reasons for this gullibility you speak of are the same reasons behind the corruption of corporate America.

As long as you have people who use ignorance as an excuse and spout such gems as "I didn't know any better, and they took advantage of me", you will have incredible violations of business ethics because the people behind the desk will stave off guilt by saying, "It's okay if I pressure them to sign without reading the terms. After all, it's there responsibility, not mine." And the person person on the other side will say, "It's not my fault if I'm foreclosed on. Who reads the fine print? Nobody reads the fine print!"
 
  • #34
Ivan Seeking said:
THAT is why WWII helped to pull us out: It was a massive federal spending program. Note also that after this massive spending program that propelled us to levels of debt never seen before [122% of GDP], we experienced a long period of growth that made possible the highest standard of living in the world.

Something else happened with World War II, and that is the nation had to coalesce to sustain a coordinated effort to defeat Nazism. In some ways, the US became a Wehrmacht, in order to defeat one. Greater efficiencies and more centralized planning and larger bureaucracy, was the strategy that managed to defeat the Axis fighting on 2 fronts as we were. Our armies were generally better supplied with excess of material.

If there is a lesson perhaps it is not just in spending per se, but maybe in greater bureaucracy and centralization? As opposed to the disparate agendas of the various states?
 
  • #35
Al68 said:
Is it greed that caused banks to make loans to people they knew could not afford to pay them back? Or was it Democrats twisting their arms? Mortgages for 100% of the home's value, 125% 2nd mortgages, no down payment. Closing costs rolled in. Bad credit. Too much debt already. Etc., etc. Banks didn't make these toxic loans before Democrats started turning the screws. And they claimed that anyone who opposed this practice just didn't care about poor people.

Beyond the fact that this problem goes way beyond Fannie and Freddie, the biggest problem seems to be the credit default swaps. I guess this was the fault of poor people as well. :rolleyes:

I suppose that Fannie and Freddie were responsible for the people buying $200,000 homes in Sacramento and San Diego for $400,000. I also suppose that they were responsible for the second [investment] home that my sister and her husband bought at hyperinflated prices using creative financing; to the tune of half a million.

The phrase "trickle down economics" is a perfect example of this. Like there are people who's stated position is that gov't should give money to rich people so it will "trickle down" to the rest of us.

Uh, where have you been? That was the claim. Are you old enough to remember this or are you just making it up as you go?

Does it make you feel better if we call it supply-side economics?
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. What is federal overreach?</h2><p>Federal overreach refers to the actions of the federal government that exceed its constitutional authority or infringe upon the powers reserved for the states. This can include issues such as environmental regulations, gun control laws, and healthcare mandates.</p><h2>2. How are states asserting their sovereignty against federal overreach?</h2><p>States can assert their sovereignty against federal overreach by passing laws or resolutions that declare their rights and powers under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They can also challenge federal laws or regulations in court or refuse to comply with them.</p><h2>3. Why are states fighting back against federal overreach?</h2><p>States are fighting back against federal overreach because they believe that the federal government is overstepping its bounds and infringing upon their rights and powers. They argue that the Tenth Amendment gives them the right to govern themselves without interference from the federal government.</p><h2>4. Are there any successful examples of states fighting back against federal overreach?</h2><p>Yes, there have been several successful examples of states fighting back against federal overreach. For example, in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of states in the case of Murphy v. NCAA, which challenged the federal ban on sports betting. Additionally, several states have successfully challenged federal environmental regulations in court.</p><h2>5. What are the potential consequences of states asserting their sovereignty against federal overreach?</h2><p>The potential consequences of states asserting their sovereignty against federal overreach can vary. In some cases, it may lead to a legal battle between the state and federal government. It may also result in the federal government withholding funding or resources from the state. However, it can also bring attention to important issues and lead to changes in federal policies or laws.</p>

1. What is federal overreach?

Federal overreach refers to the actions of the federal government that exceed its constitutional authority or infringe upon the powers reserved for the states. This can include issues such as environmental regulations, gun control laws, and healthcare mandates.

2. How are states asserting their sovereignty against federal overreach?

States can assert their sovereignty against federal overreach by passing laws or resolutions that declare their rights and powers under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They can also challenge federal laws or regulations in court or refuse to comply with them.

3. Why are states fighting back against federal overreach?

States are fighting back against federal overreach because they believe that the federal government is overstepping its bounds and infringing upon their rights and powers. They argue that the Tenth Amendment gives them the right to govern themselves without interference from the federal government.

4. Are there any successful examples of states fighting back against federal overreach?

Yes, there have been several successful examples of states fighting back against federal overreach. For example, in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of states in the case of Murphy v. NCAA, which challenged the federal ban on sports betting. Additionally, several states have successfully challenged federal environmental regulations in court.

5. What are the potential consequences of states asserting their sovereignty against federal overreach?

The potential consequences of states asserting their sovereignty against federal overreach can vary. In some cases, it may lead to a legal battle between the state and federal government. It may also result in the federal government withholding funding or resources from the state. However, it can also bring attention to important issues and lead to changes in federal policies or laws.

Back
Top