Using federal funding as a threat to influence state social policy

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
I think that this practice should be stopped. If we do not stop it, within a generation I doubt there will be any serious federalism within the system at all, and we will be basically a unitary republic. IMHO, if the supreme court doesn't decide it's illegal (and they have approved it numerous times), then congress should pass a law that says that they won't use that power, and preferably an amendment should be passed. In my opinion, using federal funding to threaten states is just as much of an infringement on the powers of the federal government as passing a law that directly dictates what states may do with their powers.
 
WM and I agree on something. I've said consistently that this is a run-around on the Constitution and directly steps into powers expressly given to the State.

Amazing.
 
Damocles said:
WM and I agree on something. I've said consistently that this is a run-around on the Constitution and directly steps into powers expressly given to the State.

Amazing.
Click to expand...
I think WM simply forgot to read the appropriate portion of the Liberal bible before he posted, and mistakenly let a bit of common sense show through. He's reconsidered though and back to his usual self. *shrug*
 
SmarterThanYou said:
states could easily avoid this type of bullying by simply managing their state budget a whole lot better, but they won't.
Click to expand...

Well, it is essentially the option to refuse funding that you'll be paying for anyway. Unless a large (or nationwide) coalition of states can be found to reject funding with strings attached 100% of the time, that's not going to be something the citizens are going to be happy with. Make it large enough and pretty much anyone besides the most hardcore libertarian will comply.
 
Watermark said:
Well, it is essentially the option to refuse funding that you'll be paying for anyway. Unless a large (or nationwide) coalition of states can be found to reject funding with strings attached 100% of the time, that's not going to be something the citizens are going to be happy with. Make it large enough and pretty much anyone besides the most hardcore libertarian will comply.
Click to expand...

If the federal government goes and builds something like the interstate system, why shouldn't they play that hand when states go and try to fuck it all up?
 
ib1yysguy said:
If the federal government goes and builds something like the interstate system, why shouldn't they play that hand when states go and try to fuck it all up?
Click to expand...

If it directly involves the project, yes they should play their hand. If they're going to say "OK, ban gay marriage or no highway funding", that's something I consider dangerous.

Like I said, continuing to go down this road will lead to a much more unitary system. That's not necessarily a bad thing (what if they attached the funding to not hosing blacks? It can go either way). But, IMHO, federalism still has a role to play in the world, even if geographical barriers are becoming more and more meaningless.
 
Watermark said:
Well, it is essentially the option to refuse funding that you'll be paying for anyway. Unless a large (or nationwide) coalition of states can be found to reject funding with strings attached 100% of the time, that's not going to be something the citizens are going to be happy with. Make it large enough and pretty much anyone besides the most hardcore libertarian will comply.
Click to expand...

and that should be pretty telling to all that most of Americans are money loving whores whose only issue is what is their price for slavery.
 
i'm going to have to mostly agree with WM. though he is an admitted intellectual weakling, he has a good point here.

given states somewhat automonous rights, they don't need to take the money. however, it is often political suicide not to...
 
We have a long history of taking the money.

Seat belts, speed limits, drug laws, heck even child seats and child bicycle helmet laws.
You name it there are thousands of instances I would think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top