The Wall Between Federal and State Governments

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Oct 5, 2009.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    The constitution is a "contract" signed among sovereign states that have all legal authority over their own borders with only a few exceptions that are defined within the enumerated powers of the constitution itself and the tenth amendment specifically says that all powers are reserved for the states with the exception of powers delegated to the federal government (such as declaring war) and things the constitution prohibits states from doing (such as states minting their own money).

    This creates a separation (or wall) of legal authority between the state and federal government because it prohibits states to undertake powers delegated to the federal government but also states that all undefined powers (or unwritten powers in the constitution) are reserved for the states. A power will either belong to the federal government or will belong to the state government but can never belong to both at the same time.

    The only legal authority the federal government has over our own lives is enforcing powers granted to it in the constitution while all other legal authority outside the limited defined powers of the federal constitution is reserved for the state governments. This gives each individual state government almost all legal authority over our lives while the federal government has very little authority since it only has a few limited powers granted to it in the constitution.
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,569
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,987
    The US Federal Government has, as I recall 17 enumerated powers. The problem is since the Civil War no new Amendments have been created granting new POWER to the Fed, they just take it by stretching the meaning of the enumerated powers. Two of the biggest frauds are the claims of what is covered by the Commerce Clause and the claim now that the preamble to the listed enumerated powers granted a General Welfare clause giving Congress unlimited power to do as it pleases in violation of the very premise of the Constitution.
     
  3. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I agree with you but the point I was trying to make is that there is a wall between the two governments. It is not possible for the federal government to pass a law limiting drug use (I'm using that as an example) because it is not one of the 17 powers. Does this mean that illegalizing drug use is unconstitional? Only on a federal level because states have that role themselves (unless their own constitution prevents that from happening). That was the point I was tying to make.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,569
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,987
    LII: Constitution

    The left and those power grabbers all would have you believe that the opening paragraph to this section grants a General Welfare clause, giving to the federal Government the right and power to do anything at all they deem in the general welfare of the Country. In other words, a clause of unlimited power that belays the very need to list the 17 powers following in the section.

    It does no such thing, it refers to the 17 powers granted as being justified because THEY promote the General Welfare of the United States.

    The very defense of the Constitution by those that wrote it was that the Constitution needed no protections listed for the States or the people because the Constitution only granted very limited powers to the Federal Government. This so called General Welfare claim would belay the entire defense laid by the framers and writers and supporters of the Constitution when it was written.
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,569
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,987
    I happen to disagree on that claim. Drug running is by nature a crime that involves crossing State and Country borders. falling clearly in the power of the Federal Government.

    Further using your claim one could claim the Federal Government has no authority over drug makers at all if they only make and dispense the drug inside a State line.

    However I would support an amendment designed to specifically state the Federal Government has this authority as it would eliminate the argument completely.
     
  6. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    My argument against the broad interpretation of the general welfare clause is that In order for any law to be constitutional it has to pass all sections of the constitution so what happens when that law is ran through the enumerated powers section? It must also pass that section's test as well so the general welfare clause must also be within in the confines of the enumerated powers of the federal constitution.
     
  7. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Who said I was trying to legalize drugs. It would still be illegal at the state level.
     
  8. PatekPhilippe
    Offline

    PatekPhilippe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    8,171
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sasebo Japan
    Ratings:
    +1,200
    Gunny....this is in fact true. This very concept is being used by gun makers in a State...I forget which one....that says the federal government has no right to regulate firearms manufactured and sold within said State and only to bonafide residents of said State in an attempt to usurp federal firearms restrictions.
     
  9. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,303
    Thanks Received:
    12,341
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,554
    If we were living before the Civil War, all the above would be true. However, the war settled all that. The national government is supreme, the general welfare clause is paramount, and the interstate commerce clause permits the feds to intrude into state affairs. Thus, while it is fun to consider 'back then', we live in the 'here now', and the old ways are not coming again. Thank heavens.
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,569
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,987
    Not the same. So long as the firearm is manufactured inside the State and is not exported to another State it is not interstate trade. Drugs fall in a different category because of the use of said drugs. We have a 2nd Amendment which states everyone has a right to keep and bear arms.

    But that is why I would recommend an amendment making drugs a Federal power no matter what, covers any loop holes nicely.
     

Share This Page