Tag: states rights

Nixon & Trans Athletes

Trump, federalism, state's rights, Constitution

The President of the United States clashed with the governor of Maine over transgender participation in government-organized athletics. Quite a hoot.

Behind this fracas looms the legacy of … Richard M. Nixon.

First, the fracas: “In a tense exchange with Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, President Donald Trump threatened to strip Maine of its federal funding,” explains CNN, “if the state refuses to comply with his executive order banning transgender women from competing in women’s sports.”

The brief volley of promises (threats) between the governor and the president made other governors “uncomfortable.” Yes, that’s a news story.

“Is Maine here?” he wondered aloud. “The governor of Maine?”

“Yeah,” Gov. Janet Mills answered from across the room. “I’m here.”

And then came a testy political exchange, the kind you don’t often see, culminating in this from Trump: “You better comply, you better comply, because, otherwise, you’re not getting any federal funding.”

“See you in court,” she promised.

“Good; I’ll see you in court. I look forward to that. That should be a real easy one. And enjoy your life after governor, because I don’t think you’ll be in elected politics.”

Trump may not be wrong. He may have the better legal case.

But doesn’t it seem weird that the president of the United States can extort compliance from the states on matters that are not enumerated in the Constitution?

Well, back in his first term Trump signed an executive order to direct a new devolution process of turning back education to the states. But the transgender issue is a big deal, and most Americans (around 80 percent) are against “biological” “men” competing with girls and women in sports, and since much of sports in America takes place in state-directed/taxpayer-funded contexts, Trump is leveraging federal bloc grants against states that balk at his agenda.

Thank Nixon and his “New Federalism.” While an attempt to give power back to the states, it also tied federal money to the devolution, which has effectively turned states into welfare queens begging big bucks off Washington, severely compromising the states’ … basic competence.

It’s this policy that Trump should be fighting.

But that would make governors even more uncomfortable.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags control, Donald Trump, federalism, states rights

general freedom local leaders Tenth Amendment federalism

Utah and the Tenth

The trouble with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution — the last two items in the Bill of Rights — has not been lack of clarity. The Tenth, at least, is extremely clear: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The problem has been one of enforcement. How do the States prevent the federal government from overreach? Especially when the federal government acts as if no objection to a federal law could be brooked? Especially when the Supreme Court is, ahem, wrong, or hasn’t yet been approached with a challenge.

Utah has rediscovered an old technique. And revived it. Governor Spencer Cox signed into law the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act”: “The Legislature may, by concurrent resolution, prohibit a government officer from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of a federal directive within the state if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty.”

Ultra clear. And by old precedent — the non-enforcement of The Fugitive Slave Act by some northern states — it provides teeth to the Tenth. If the federal government were to enact (just stretch your mind a bit!) something obviously unconstitutional, like, say, a gun confiscation, the state legislature would simply vote to prohibit any state employee, or subsidiary of the state (county, municipality) from working with federal agents. Federal government agencies don’t have enough manpower to enforce all the rules. The feds rely on the states.

CNN quotes a Democrat representative running against Governor Cox suggesting that the use of this technique would be overruled by the Supreme Court using “the Supremacy Clause.”

No. The Supremacy Clause only applies to the federal government regarding specified (“enumerated”) powers.

Regarding matters not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is the States that are supreme.

Or the People.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags federalism, states rights, Utah

media and media people Tenth Amendment federalism

California Secedes?

John C. Calhoun, nullification, federalism, states rights,

“California this week declared its independence from the federal government’s feeble efforts to fight Covid-19 — and perhaps from a bit more.” So begins a hyper-partisan, slightly unhinged Bloomberg opinion piece.

“Governor Gavin Newsom said that he would use the bulk purchasing power of California ‘as a nation-state’ to acquire the hospital supplies that the federal government has failed to provide,” writes one Mr. Francis Wilkinson. “If all goes according to plan, Newsom said, California might even ‘export some of those supplies to states in need.’”

Highlighting two concepts, “nation-state” and “export,” Wilkinson makes much of California’s governor contracting with manufacturers to deliver face masks to his state, arguing that the Trump administration had failed to deliver.

“John C. Calhoun, who used the theory of states’ rights to defend the institution of slavery, is not generally a philosophical lodestar for liberal Democrats such as Newsom,” Wilkinson plunges ahead. He suspects Republicans are hell-bent on subverting democracy come November, making “Calhoun’s theory of nullification … ripe for a comeback on the left coast.”

Calhoun’s “theory” of nullification, as Wilkinson puts it, was called by James Madison “interposition,” and flows directly from the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. It has been used by states for reasons other than defending slavery — most often defending states from unconstitutional taxation.

Indeed, it was used by Northern states to resist federal attempts to reclaim fugitive slaves.*

While it is instructive to watch advocates of huge government flirt with federalist ideas, and the compact theory of the union, one has to wonder how nullification fits with resisting a lack of federal action on face masks.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* And free people who merely looked like slaves. For the slavery issue, and more on nullification, see Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century (2010).

PDF for printing