Will This Bill Not Get A Constitutional Challenge, If Passed?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty (via Big Government)

The Hill reports on a casual $100B that will blow right past state capitals and go to local governments:

Miller’s bill would make $100 billion in grants available to localities over the next two years in the form of grant programs for funds to save or create local jobs, or to create work-training programs for city workers.

I get that Pelosi, Miller & Co. have almost a century-long tradition of shenanigans to back them up.
Other than that, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for the Federal government to be cruising at the Local level.
Well, the Federal government has the deep pockets, and the States are broke, is the likely response.
Let’s get some legal beagles to band together and start defending the Constitution, the 10th Amendment in particular, and start agitating for the Federal government to focus on Federal concerns.

9 comments

  6. Downgraded to a beagle. Sigh.

    Moving onwards: the big issue is that the Supreme Court will defer to precedent over the plain meaning of the Constitution. This then ends up becoming rather entrenched law, because it’s impossible to get rid of the panoply of programmes, agencies, and bureaucracies that are created in response to a Supreme Court decision that expands the power of the federal government.

    Justice Thomas has indicated a willingness to enforce the Constitution and limit the power of the federal government, and let the people who made the mess sort out the rest; no other Justice, however, is willing to do that. At the most, they will enforce the limits of the feds at the periphery.

    (Of course, this is when we get back to the obvious: repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and put another Amendment in place that would forbid the Feds from getting money by any means that is not directly from the States. No gas tax. No corporate tax. No value-added tax. No capital gains tax.)

  7. Downgraded to a beagle. Sigh.

    Moving onwards: the big issue is that the Supreme Court will defer to precedent over the plain meaning of the Constitution. This then ends up becoming rather entrenched law, because it’s impossible to get rid of the panoply of programmes, agencies, and bureaucracies that are created in response to a Supreme Court decision that expands the power of the federal government.

    Justice Thomas has indicated a willingness to enforce the Constitution and limit the power of the federal government, and let the people who made the mess sort out the rest; no other Justice, however, is willing to do that. At the most, they will enforce the limits of the feds at the periphery.

    (Of course, this is when we get back to the obvious: repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and put another Amendment in place that would forbid the Feds from getting money by any means that is not directly from the States. No gas tax. No corporate tax. No value-added tax. No capital gains tax.)

Comments are closed.