Posted on 10/21/2011 5:35:51 AM PDT by JOHN W K
SEE: Cain Adds to ‘9-9-9’ Plan, Angering Unions
Taking aim at minimum wage laws, union protections, and even local building codes, Herman Cain has put the finishing touches on the last missing piece of his signature “9-9-9” plan – an elaborate proposal to create “opportunity zones” in inner-city America that the GOP presidential candidate will unveil during a major campaign appearance in Detroit on Friday morning.
The first thing to note is how FoxNews immediately attempts to frame and limit the discussion, i.e., Herman Cain vs. those evil Unions. But why are unions now considered to be “evil”? Is it not because they threaten a free market system and wish to exert extraordinary power to impose their will?
And just what are Herman Cain’s “opportunity zones” which he originally called “empowerment zones”? Are they not a proposal to have the federal government enter each of the united States, designate particular geographical locations as an “opportunity zone”, and then interfere with the internal commerce of each State just as unions now do?
If Herman Cain were a defender of our once free market system, he would not be proposing the enlargement of the federal government’s meddling within each State’s borders under the innocuous name “opportunity zones“ under which he proposes to pick winners and losers and enforce unequal law based upon a geographical location’s economic conditions. Did we not just learn the consequences of allowing the federal government to pick winners and losers under Obama’s Solyndra deal, which was used to plunder our federal treasury?
And, how long would it take before Herman Cain’s opportunity zones if allowed to be implemented would be used by our federal government to blackmail the states as is now done with federal highway funds, or the more recent No Child Left Behind Act?
What Mr. Cain needs to answer with regard to his proposal has nothing to do with unions. Unfortunately, our establishment media will not put Herman Cain on the spot and remind Herman that our federal Constitution declares in crystal clear language that:
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another. So, what part of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6 does Herman Cain not understand?
And if Article 1, Section 9. Clause 6 is not clear enough for Mr. Cain to understand the founder‘s intentions, and that our federal government is one of defined and limited powers, what part of Federalist No. 45 does Mr. Cain not understand which summarizes our federal government’s job as follows?
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
And if the above is not clear enough that our founders intentions were to forbid the federal government from entering the States and interfering with their internal affairs and commerce, what part of the Tenth Amendment does Mr. Cain not understand?
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.
Finally, if all the above has not sent the message to Mr. Cain that his proposal is tyranny with a smiley-face, then perhaps Herman ought to read what our Supreme Court stated shortly after the Tenth Amendment was adopted:
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
So tell us Mr. Cain, under what constitutional authority would you be acting when granting preferential treatment within a State based upon a geographical location’s economic circumstances?
Why not simply support the 32 word plan::The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money which would return us to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate, and was designed to encourage Congress to protect a free market system and paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world, when it was adhered to.
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
Gee, and I was told that Fox News is just as liberal as all the rest and not worth watching. Who knew?
Why should the Federal Government have a preference about where I build my plant?
In principle how is this different from the NLRB harassing Boeing for building a plant in S.C. One uses a stick, the other the carrot but the object is to manipulate citizens.
These “opportunity zones” are similar to the “enterprise zones” President Reagan and other conservatives proposed in the 1980s. Next, “right to buy” (as it was called in Britain), AKA “urban homesteading.”
I had wondered about that last night but then it later came out Cain has the old opt in/out type string attached.
Even if the plan squeezes in the first door of states rights, it seems there are more questionable doors waiting.
I suppose in a few days we will see how it shakes out running through all the Levin, Judge Napolitano types.
If there is too much flack Cain will change course—that seems to be the way he rolls.
It seems with Cain the one thing you can count on is that you can’t count on the first play.
I’m not really sure I’m a fan of this.
Having said that, this does seem to have one major difference in that it isn’t the federal government deciding where the zones would be. Rather, if a state changes their laws so that a certain area of the states meet the requirements, that area automaticly becomes a zone.
Heck, there’s nothing to stop the state of Alabama from making the entire state an opportunity zone.
This does seem like the old federal arm twisting of using federal dollars to change their laws, but at least it’s not the state picking winners and loses.
Like I said, I’m not so sure I’m on board with this, because I think the feds try to tell the states too much now.
Why aren’t you thrilled to have the opportunity to build your plant in a place that will give you tax breaks and other incentives.
That the thing that kills me about people screaming ‘favoritism!’
Companies have a *choice*. They can put their plants and businesses anywhere they darn well please. If they want bigger breaks than they’re already getting with 999, they can put their plants in areas where there’s already ready and waiting labor and they can get bigger breaks. Anyone can take advantage of this.
That is NOT favoritism.
It is manipulation. It makes us all poorer.
its social engineering..
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
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.