Skip to comments.
Reigning in the feds
Washington Times ^
| 6/19/02
Posted on 06/19/2002 12:24:04 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
When the 13 colonies decided to form a new nation, they established a government based on the principle of federalism
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: judiciary; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
1
posted on
06/19/2002 12:24:04 AM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Hurrah! Hurrah!
To: CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom; one_particular_harbour; kmiller1k; Snow Bunny; ..
Writing for the Supreme Court's 5-4 majority, Justice Clarence Thomas applied the sovereign immunity doctrine to administrative proceedings that can decide a state's rights or obligations. Justice Thomas' decision justified every liberal's fear of strict-constructionist judges. Finding that the FMC was performing a judicial function, the high court's decision declares, in the strongest terms, that states have the same immunity from lawsuits in administrative courts that they do in courts established under the Constitution. Imperialist agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency which leverages its adjudicative powers to compel states to follow its rules will now have to use their powers within the limits of the Constitution, not their own agendas.
Gotta like that.
To: kattracks
4
posted on
06/19/2002 12:59:24 AM PDT
by
IoCaster
To: kattracks
BUMP
5
posted on
06/19/2002 1:01:57 AM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: kattracks; blackie; AuntB; GrandmaC
"Imperialist agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, which leverages its adjudicative powers to compel states to follow its rules, will now have to use their powers within the limits of the Constitution, not their own agendas." This is the best news I've come across all day (maybe even all week!) There may be hope for the Republic yet. Let's hope this is the beginning of a trend.
To: kattracks
Bravo, finally it seems, a little ray of hope.
7
posted on
06/19/2002 1:38:48 AM PDT
by
exnavy
To: Sabertooth; kattracks; First_Salute; joanie-f
Wow! This is good news. Thanks for the post, and the ping.
Of course the EPA won't abide by this ruling, just as they didn't abide by the U.S. v. James Wilson decision in the 4th Circuit.
IIRC, that decision said that federal power only reached to navigable waters, not small streams, drainiage ditches, and backyard puddles.
8
posted on
06/19/2002 2:25:59 AM PDT
by
snopercod
To: kattracks
The ink wasn't dry on the 10th Amendment before the Hamilton gang began dismantling it. No part of the Constitution has been more abused than the 10th. This is one small victory in sea of abuses.....I'll take it, but many more victories are needed. Unfortunately liberal socialists and too may Republicans view the Constitution as an obstacle that has to be circumvented in order to give the federal government (federal politicians) more power over states and individuals.
9
posted on
06/19/2002 3:07:47 AM PDT
by
Solid Oak
To: Jim Robinson
One small step.
Clarence Thomas.
:O)
10
posted on
06/19/2002 3:49:10 AM PDT
by
metesky
To: Sabertooth
Hi Saber, thank you for the ping.
To: kattracks; Sabertooth; Snow Bunny; Alamo-Girl; Republican Wildcat; Howlin; Fred Mertz; onyx; ...
Reigning in the feds
Excerpt:
Writing for the Supreme Court's 5-4 majority, Justice Clarence Thomas applied the sovereign immunity doctrine to administrative proceedings that can decide a state's rights or obligations. Justice Thomas' decision justified every liberal's fear of strict-constructionist judges. Finding that the FMC was performing a judicial function, the high court's decision declares, in the strongest terms, that states have the same immunity from lawsuits in administrative courts that they do in courts established under the Constitution.
Imperialist agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency which leverages its adjudicative powers to compel states to follow its rules will now have to use their powers within the limits of the Constitution, not their own agendas. The decision protects the states from the expansionist power of federal agencies, and for this we should all be thankful. As the May 28 decision says, "By guarding against encroachments by the federal government on fundamental aspects of state sovereignty . . . we strive to maintain the balance of power embodied in our Constitution and thus reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Exactly.
Thanks for the post and ping, Kat and Saber!
Anything that puts fear in liberals has gotta be a good thing !
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my ping list!. . .don't be shy.
To: Jim Robinson
Hey - According to all the postes here there is no such thing as "State's Rights"...
Seriously, I just watched the investature of a new Judge - interesting that the oath requires an affirmation to uphold the Constitution of the United States and then to bear allegiance to the State of Maryland and it's Constitution.
If Maryland was not a seperate sovereign then there would be no need for the second affirmation....but try telling the Feds and their apologists that.
13
posted on
06/19/2002 5:27:19 AM PDT
by
Abundy
To: kattracks
The only way to reign in the feds is to reenact the Boston Tea Party, but instead of tea bales throw the federales into Boston Harbor!
To: kattracks
Constitutional Bump!
To: aculeus; Orual
Reigning inA moment of silence, please, for editors who are no longer with us.
16
posted on
06/19/2002 5:55:13 AM PDT
by
dighton
To: sauropod; editor-surveyor
By guarding against encroachments by the federal government on fundamental aspects of state sovereignty . . . we strive to maintain the balance of power embodied in our Constitution and thus reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.
What we'd like to see:
By guarding against encroachments by the federal government on fundamental aspects of individual liberty . . . we strive to maintain the balance of power embodied in our Constitution and thus reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.
17
posted on
06/19/2002 6:02:24 AM PDT
by
kitchen
To: dighton; aculeus
18
posted on
06/19/2002 6:02:34 AM PDT
by
Orual
To: snopercod
Bump.
To: kattracks
The EPA has no jurisdiction within the 50 states. That is because the Congress has no power to legislate within the 50 states.
20
posted on
06/19/2002 7:03:13 AM PDT
by
Demidog
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson