When asked what kind of government had been proposed at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin famously responded: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
But Old Ben did not clarify the nature of the republic.
It was to be a federal republic.
In the new Constitution — which was adopted by the states over the next few years — the States were sovereign, the general government given a concise and limited list of tasks to perform.
Since then, nationalism has won most of the big battles, but federalism remains vital as a principle, re-asserting itself in interesting ways.
Most recent? “Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton receives huge win with court ruling delivered on Tuesday deeming the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending package passed in 2022 unconstitutional,” as Leading Report explained on Tuesday. “This victory marks a pivotal moment in Paxton’s challenge against the legislation, highlighting concerns over the bill’s approval process.”
At issue is Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which President Biden signed in December 2022, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, concluding that “by including members [of U.S. Congress] who were indisputably absent in the quorum count, the Act at issue passed in violation of the Constitution’s Quorum Clause.”
As Paxton gleefully summarized, “Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi abused proxy voting under the pretext of COVID-19 to pass this law, then Biden signed it, knowing they violated the Constitution.”
The story, as Leading Report argues, “showcases the role of state attorneys general in upholding constitutional principles and ensuring adherence to legal frameworks within the realm of federal governance.”
The States have some say. Still.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
4 replies on “States Still Have a Role”
The report to which you linked seems studiously to avoid discussing the details. And, as we know, the Devil himself is in those details.
Ostensible passage of the Bill is not generally undone. Rather, only the two features of the Bill challenged by the State of Texas were under any threat; and, in the case of one of those features, the judge used that favorite device of judges, and declared that the State of Texas had no standing. So, constitutional or not, the feature cannot be challenged by a constituent state. G_d knows who does have standing.
What was undone, exactly and only within the jurisdiction of the State of Texas, was an expansion of the legal claims against employers that can be made by pregnant workers. What survived challenge was a pilot programme to support non-citizen immigrants in removal proceedings.
The Biden Administration has not been characterized by continence, so perhaps it will appeal the ruling, perhaps the case will make its way to the US Supreme Court, and perhaps the Justices will arrive at a rather radical decision. But, for now, to me the decision seems a triumph far less fundamental than quibbling.
I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the FEDERATION of republics for which it stands.
That idea of a “one nation” anthem was intentionally adopted to undermine the idea of the founders.
It’s a good thing however:
1) It’s a single judge’s decision.
2) It’s 2 years too late. The $1.7T is already spent. Nancy’s laughing, “So, watcha gonna do about it?”
The Constitution gave the federal government limited powers but the Supreme Court changed all that when it decided Congress had unenumerated powers to pass laws that were ‘necessary and proper’ and that state governments could not interfere with the federal government. So much for ‘federalism’. These court rulings are likely meaningless. The money has been spent. It can’t be clawed back. Since the Constitution gives Congress the right to set its own rules, nothing will stop them from modifying their rules to prevent such challenges in the future.