www.omaha.com wrote:LINCOLN — At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:
Butt out of state business.
Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.
The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.
“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”
www.omaha.com wrote:LINCOLN — At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:
Butt out of state business.
Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.
The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.
“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”
This is an area of politics that upsets me off. The Constitution clearly spells out each entity's responsibilities and the Federal government has shat all over the Constitution in this regard. However, both parties (and their supporters) fully support this, so long as the Federal government is forcing states to adopt their view. You see the people on the left using the Federal government to control things like health care and people on the right using the Federal government to try on control things like the Teri Schaivo case.
Frankly, I wish more people on both sides of the aisle would quit this practice and give power back to where it was intended to reside and hardly see it as retarded. If people want the Federal government to have more power, our founders put in place the process to do so.
Well my issue is gay rights which I don't ever see Nebraska getting on board with (needless to say I won't be living here forever or much longer after school) so I like the Fed coming in and regulating things like that.
This is political grandstanding at its worst. Only the paranoid, fearful people who think "the government" is out to get them will support this (which mind you the government referred to as a single all powerful entity does not actually exist). Unfortunately since we live in this state I think it will probably go over well.
I'm guessing that part where it says to provide for the general welfare could leave a lot of things wide open.
As far as the marriage debate I see it coming down to the Fed. It's going to end up being like slavery being legal in some places and not in others, but people are going to see it as being wrong eventually.
DTO Luv wrote:I'm guessing that part where it says to provide for the general welfare could leave a lot of things wide open.
As far as the marriage debate I see it coming down to the Fed. It's going to end up being like slavery being legal in some places and not in others, but people are going to see it as being wrong eventually.
-The Federal government has historically interpreted the Constitution VERY liberally to try and fit just about anything under those phrases. And the things they can't they just blackmail the states into adopting (speed limits???),
omahastylee459 wrote:This is political grandstanding at its worst. Only the paranoid, fearful people who think "the government" is out to get them will support this (which mind you the government referred to as a single all powerful entity does not actually exist). Unfortunately since we live in this state I think it will probably go over well.
Yeah, only the whackos care about this. That's why the constitutional law essay on my bar exam was entirely related to the 10th and 11th Amendments. :roll: :roll:
Frankly, this has much less to do with equal protection cases (which arise out of the 14th Amendment) and more to do with the commerce clause, the doormant commerce clause, and the 'power to tax and spend for the general welfare" clause of Article 1.
When a person growing food solely for his own family's use and not for sale nonetheless may be regulated by the Feds under the commerce clause (Wickard v. Filburn, which is still good law today), I can see the senators' points.
