Ravi
Diamond Member
I think it should, and is supposed to be handled, this way:It should be constitutional to set speed limits on federal highways.Had you simply said that I would not have been arguing with you at all. That statement is true. No State can Deny you rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.
However that is not what you said. You said Which is not true.
If the Fed attempts to do something not spelled out in the Constitution, It could very well be deemed unconstitutional for the Fed to do it precisely because it is a power reserved to the states.
IMO you are being willfully ignorant of that Fact.
If and when the SCOTUS gets around to hearing a case against the Individual Mandate in the Health care law. The Feds will be arguing that under the interstate commerce clause they can do it. The States are arguing they can not. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the states, Which it seems is entirely possible. Then you will have a nice example of something being Constitutional at the state level and Unconstitutional for the Feds to do.
Just one other example is the Attempts to impose a Federal Speed limit. Back when they Fed Forced it to 55MPH. They had to do an end run around the Constitution to pull it off. They knew if they passed a law to impose a Federal Speed limit it would not stand up to legal scrutiny, as the Constitution does not allow for the Fed to do such a thing. So instead they threatened states with withholding Federal Highway Funding unless they complied with a 55MPH standard. Yet Another example of the Separation of powers and the Fed attempting to thwart them. Had they passed a law making a Federal Speed limit. It would have undoubtedly been ruled unconstitutional again because the Fed is not given the power to set the speed limits, it therefore is a power of the states.
All this might seem like nit picking to some, but our Founders were no to keen on every little decision in their lives being made by people Many miles away, that is why the Intended Division of powers between the Fed and States was so important to them. They understood that if they traded King George for a Strong Centralized Federal Government here in the US, all they would be doing is trading 1 Tyrant in England for a Bunch of Tyrants in DC. They wanted all but the most essential Things, like Defense, Kept at the most local level possible.
Is it constitutional for states to set speed limits against the wishes of cities?
btw...I don't think SCOTUS ever visited the speed limit problem.
You may or may not be right that it should be constitutional, but as it is written it is not. Only through the amendment process can and should that be changed. Personally I do not see the need for it. I am not sure why you think everything must be handled from DC. I think the states are perfectly able to determine how fast they want people to go on their roads. But then I think that may be the difference between you and me. I see value in The Division of power between the Many States and the Fed. You seem to not place much value in it at all. That is why people sometimes refer to people who think like you as Statists. Nothing to be ashamed of, just the facts. You believe the Fed should be omnipotent and have the Final say in just about every aspect of our lives from if we buy health insurance, to how fast we can drive. I think I would rather have people a little closer to home in charge of most things.
Not sure on your second question, I would assume that depends on the wording of each states constitution.
And as to the last, you are correct the SCOTUS never visited the speed limit question, because they never had to, Because the Fed did an end run around the Constitution and forced compliance with their Standard not with law, but with threats of withholding Federal Dollars.
The people decide.
The city decides.
The county decides.
The state decides.
The fed decides.
The people being #1
If you can make a case that the state can set county and city speed limits then you can make a case that the federal government can do the same.
It isn't me that wants the power to be put in the hands of the federal government, rather it is you that wants it to be put in the hands of the state government. I prefer it to be in the hands of the people.
That said, the states, cities and counties cannot deny a right to any citizen guaranteed via the US constitution.