Latest

Leftists Do Federalism Terribly – To Then Do Policy Terribly

Seton Motley | Less Government | LessGovernment.org
Seton Motley | Less Government | LessGovernment.org
WAY Too Ignored

Leftists like to pretend they’re things they are not.  Because the things they are – are so decidedly unpopular amongst We the People.

By and large, We the People like less government.  Which, of course, is antithetical to Leftists.

The more leftover, warmed-over Leftist “ideas” Democrat Massachusettes Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren put forward as she tried to overtake Socialist Vermont Senator and primary opponent Bernie Sanders – the less popular she became.

Warren enjoyed a post-Sanders-heart-attack bump – but since his recovery she has receded back into the primary ether.

Sanders learned his lesson with the huge pushback he received to the very ridiculous Medicare for All.  And has never again offered any specifics at all for his myriad planned Socialist assaults on We the People.

Behold one of the less government principles We the People like – Federalism:

“The distribution of power in an organization (such as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units.”

In the United States – per our Constitution – this means:

“Federalism in the United States, also referred to as the doctrine of shared sovereignty, is the constitutional division of power between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States.

“Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, power shifted away from the states and toward the national government.’

This last sentence describes the Left’s two-plus-century assault on the Founders’ Federalism.

The Founders wanted the states and municipalities to do the vast majority of the governing.  Which is what the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments are all about.

Ninth: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Tenth: “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 federal government is only supposed to do things – the states and municipalities alone can not.  But there are several of those things.

For instance, no single state or municipality is responsible for defending our national borders.  Which means – quite clearly – immigration policy is the prerogative of the federal government.

Leftists don’t like our federal immigration laws.  So they declare Sanctuary States, Cities and Whatevers all over the country – to break, end run and otherwise undermine them.

So they can instead impose their terrible policies.  Which we have already said we think are terrible – by outlawing them federally.

And the Left does this – while ridiculously declaring “Federalism!”

Federalism Permits Sanctuary Cities

No, it does not.

Fight Over Sanctuary Cities Is Also a Fight Over Federalism

No, it is not.

Even some alleged Rightists get duped.

Do We Hate Sanctuary Cities More Than We Like Federalism?

We hate Sanctuary Cities – BECAUSE we like Federalism.

Our enamor of Federalism – also makes things like the following so incredibly annoying.

Behold the Left’s anti-Federalism assault on the Internet – ridiculously executed in the name of “Federalism!”

States Will Be the Battlegrounds for 2020 Tech Policy Fights

Will 2020 See a State-by-State Return to Net Neutrality in the US?

Will More States Adopt Privacy Laws in 2020?

How Progressive Federalism Can Help Preserve Net Neutrality:

“(I)nternet policy should be a welcome opportunity to use one of our country’s most valuable traditions, federalism, to identify policies and approaches that work, as well as those that fail to achieve their goals.”

Ummm….no.

The World Wide Web – is a WORLD Wide Web.  An entire planet of countries – interconnected.

So quite obviously, Internet law and regulation is the purview of our federal government.

Our Feds pass and impose Internet policy for US – and then negotiate terms of interchange with the nations of the world.

Having fifty different slates of state-by-state Internet policies – is omni-directional insane.

It’s insane for every single business that does business online.  Which is…just about every business:

“The result is going to be a patchwork of statewide laws with which each company doing business in those states must comply. What’s worse is that there will be independent reporting requirements, different enforcement methods and wildly different penalties for non-compliance.

“Another way to describe that result is ‘chaos.’ The tech industry will either have to start depending on location services so that it knows where each user’s data is during the course of each transaction, or it’s going to have to start excluding (wherever possible) states with regulations that it deems too onerous.

“That in turn means that small states with strong privacy rules may find themselves without some services. After all, a small business without the resources to determine the rules in each state may well decide that the risk isn’t worth it.

“This is not unlike the situation those businesses are dealing with, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has said that states and localities can demand sales tax from ecommerce companies.”

And having fifty different slates of state-by-state Internet policies – is insane for our federal government.  As they try to negotiate Internet interchange with every other country on the planet.

The Feds will have to try to make chicken salad out of fifty-state chicken…excrement.

Which will mean eternal, everlasting chaos.

In the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, our Founders yet again expressly stated why Internet policy is federal policy – centuries before there was an Internet.  Because our Founders were really quite intelligent.

“The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).

“The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power ‘To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.’”

Like with Federalism, the Left has bastardized the living daylight out of the Commerce Clause:

“(The Commerce Clause) is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers.”

But like Federalism, the Commerce Clause was intended to be a government-limiting clause:

“‘And’ is the key word (in the Commerce Clause) because it tells us the power to regulate foreign commerce is the exact same as the power to regulate interstate commerce.

“That’s critical because it means that any type of commerce that Congress can regulate domestically among the states also has to be something it could regulate with a foreign country.

“What’s cool about that is it makes it very easy for you to figure out what Congress has the authority to regulate when it comes to commerce ‘among the several states.’”

The Commerce Clause and Federalism – limit the Feds to only things that require their participation internationally.

We don’t need the Feds internationally on, say, medicine.  So the Feds have no constitutional role in medicine.

We need the Feds internationally on immigration.  So the Feds – and only the Feds – have a constitutional role in immigration.

And we need the Feds internationally on the Internet.  So the Feds – and only the Feds – have a constitutional role on the Internet.

This ain’t that hard.

As the late, inordinately great Ronald Reagan noted:

“There are no easy answers – but there are simple answers.”

This first appeared in Red State.