This is long overdue, I think. I’d sure like to see it go somewhere.
7 thoughts on “A Bill Of Federalism”
I saw on Glenn Beck the other day that states are also looking at other ways to fight for federalism by forcing issues through the courts. We can only hope something works. I know it’s taken generations, but I still find it amazing that we find ourselves where we are.
The Constitution, including the ninth and tenth Amendments already create federalism. The Congress and the Courts, under the rubric of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have diminished federalism. It would be far more effective and simple to amend the Constitution by removing those clauses.
It would be far more effective and simple to amend the Constitution by removing those clauses.
Except that those clauses do have their uses.
Personally I applaud Prof. Barnett’s goals, but I think the Bill itself is badly drafted. Half the Amendments amount to “And we really mean it!” amendments; they can be ignored. A real reform requires structural changes to the Federal lawmaking progress, like specifically outlawing Congress’ habit of withholding Federal spending until a State passes legislation Congress cannot.
Except that [the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause] do have their uses
Are those uses sufficient to compensate for their abuses?
What actual detriment would occur if they were removed?
Wouldn’t it then put things where they belong, in the states hands?
I think simplicity would dictate one amendment, prohibiting Congress from authorizing or the Treasury from disbursing, any public monies to any purpose except purchasing goods or services required for the government to carry out its enumerated duties. Properly drafted this would eliminate all entitlements at a stroke.
I wrote to my congressman, one of the few remaining fiscal conservatives on the GOP side of the aisle, urging him to propose such an amendment and try to make it an issue for the 2010 elections.
It might help if more such encouragement were sent to more members of Congress.
I’m inclined to agree with Brock — the constitution, especially on enumeration of rights, isn’t exactly a hard-to-read document. Nonetheless, The Supreme Court has seen fit to read it any way it pleases. Are you telling me a court that still finds a right to abortion in “emanations of penumbras” of unstated clauses, could not find similar “emanations of penumbras” to the new amendments that don’t, say….guarantee an individual’s right to health care? (look at the actual wording of Amendment 9, for instance…isn’t health part of “enjoying” life?)
The simplest way to restore federalism would be to have 30 states call for a convention in the name of repealing the 16th and 17th amendments. The march to centralization and destruction of federalization started in 1913 with Wilson so his two amendments have to killed.
Adding mandatory term limits would be gravy but carries uncertain risks with it of moving from the open cravenness of today to “power behind the throne” of unelected party kingmakers.
I think a new amendment requiring all bills to be fully read aloud on the floor of each house of congress prior to passage would actually do the most to restore the intent of separation of powers.
To explain that last part –it would be much more difficult for Congress to reach ever further with more complex legislation into our lives if they were restricted to what could be read verbally from the floor. Can you imagine the effect on the tax code alone?
I saw on Glenn Beck the other day that states are also looking at other ways to fight for federalism by forcing issues through the courts. We can only hope something works. I know it’s taken generations, but I still find it amazing that we find ourselves where we are.
The Constitution, including the ninth and tenth Amendments already create federalism. The Congress and the Courts, under the rubric of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have diminished federalism. It would be far more effective and simple to amend the Constitution by removing those clauses.
Except that those clauses do have their uses.
Personally I applaud Prof. Barnett’s goals, but I think the Bill itself is badly drafted. Half the Amendments amount to “And we really mean it!” amendments; they can be ignored. A real reform requires structural changes to the Federal lawmaking progress, like specifically outlawing Congress’ habit of withholding Federal spending until a State passes legislation Congress cannot.
Except that [the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause] do have their uses
Are those uses sufficient to compensate for their abuses?
What actual detriment would occur if they were removed?
Wouldn’t it then put things where they belong, in the states hands?
I think simplicity would dictate one amendment, prohibiting Congress from authorizing or the Treasury from disbursing, any public monies to any purpose except purchasing goods or services required for the government to carry out its enumerated duties. Properly drafted this would eliminate all entitlements at a stroke.
I wrote to my congressman, one of the few remaining fiscal conservatives on the GOP side of the aisle, urging him to propose such an amendment and try to make it an issue for the 2010 elections.
It might help if more such encouragement were sent to more members of Congress.
I’m inclined to agree with Brock — the constitution, especially on enumeration of rights, isn’t exactly a hard-to-read document. Nonetheless, The Supreme Court has seen fit to read it any way it pleases. Are you telling me a court that still finds a right to abortion in “emanations of penumbras” of unstated clauses, could not find similar “emanations of penumbras” to the new amendments that don’t, say….guarantee an individual’s right to health care? (look at the actual wording of Amendment 9, for instance…isn’t health part of “enjoying” life?)
The simplest way to restore federalism would be to have 30 states call for a convention in the name of repealing the 16th and 17th amendments. The march to centralization and destruction of federalization started in 1913 with Wilson so his two amendments have to killed.
Adding mandatory term limits would be gravy but carries uncertain risks with it of moving from the open cravenness of today to “power behind the throne” of unelected party kingmakers.
I think a new amendment requiring all bills to be fully read aloud on the floor of each house of congress prior to passage would actually do the most to restore the intent of separation of powers.
To explain that last part –it would be much more difficult for Congress to reach ever further with more complex legislation into our lives if they were restricted to what could be read verbally from the floor. Can you imagine the effect on the tax code alone?