[Yosemitest]

Here's that update from your source.

Update: The original reporting of this story was not entirely fair. After posting the article, it has since been brought this author’s attention that surrendering the 11th amendment under a bill of this nature it is not that uncommon or sensational.

As pointed out by The Blaze’s Meredith Jessup:


[If] a state is allocated a certain amount of funds for a road project, the initial funding for the project is a debt incurred by the state to be reimbursed by the federal government. This is so the feds can enforce guarantees of debt. It also prevents states from hiring contractors and then refusing to pay without the waiver of the 11th; the contractor would have no legal standing to sue the state for non-payment since the federal government is the ultimate source of funds.

You can find similar language in other bills [such as] The Americans with Disabilities Act.

Essentially, an 11th amendment waiver prevents states from contracting workers and then refusing to pay. Although a waiver of this type does technically surrender certain rights, it is not an entirely unreasonable arrangement (nor is it new).

Therefore, while the claim that states will lose their sovereignty if they accept any aid provided by this bill is factually correct, it is the belief of this author that the original story was an overreaction.

And for this, I apologize.

[Yosemitest]

From your e-mail:

While I attempted to post this as a reply on the thread, the formatting did not show up correctly.

Regarding the thread:
New Jobs Bill OVERRIDES STATE’s RIGHTS

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2781317/posts

While they point out that it’s “technically correct”, what they fail to consider is
that a weapon in the hands of ‘good’ is protection,
but a weapon in the hands of ‘evil’ leads to evil.

It’s like the Patriot Act -
wiretapping related to international Middle East calls helps protect and defend American citizens by picking up on any chatter that reveals anything dangerous going on.
Using that same legislation, but having it in the hands of evil, turns it into a vehicle that can now be used on their new target -
those they now call terrorists (church goers, tea party members, etc.)

Same with Obamacare. “
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.
“Obamacare will reduce the cost of healthcare”.
“We’re protecting our seniors”.
All of this, and more, turned out to be the exact opposite.
The bill cuts half a Trillion from Medicare, sets up death panels, costs all of us more (107% more for my family),
and more people have lost their doctor and their coverage than ever before.

Do I think that Obama, Holder and their ACLU won’t exploit the “technically correct” part of Sec 376?
Of course they’ll exploit it!!
Just as they’re exploiting the Commerce Clause to justify what they’re doing to us with Obamacare.

.... look at Sec 376 to see if it says anything like “the funds provided for by this bill”.
If it’s not specifically stated, that’s not an innocent omission. It’s deliberate.

Here’s the key right here... it just says “for any program or activity of a State”.
Then look at the definition of “program or activity”.

The Blaze author who backtracked is wrong.
The way this is written, the Fed govt will easily win their case.
Just as the Fed govt won their case against the farmer by claiming he was somehow ‘impacting’ interstate commerce.
Only this one will be a much easier win that that one was.

(A) WAIVER- A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity,
under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise,
to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act.<

(B) DEFINITION- In this paragraph, the term `program or activity’ has the meaning given the term in section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a).”

Here is the link <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00002000-—d004a.html> to 42 USC 2000d-4a which defines “program or activity”:

“For the purposes of this subchapter, the term “program or activity” and the term “program” mean all of the operations of—
(1)
(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or

The key word here is “or”, meaning only (A) needs to apply.

Thanks, Whenifhow.