Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federalism Rules ó Even When Itís Inconvenient
Flopping Aces ^ | 09-07-12 | guyfawkes99

Posted on 09/07/2012 3:34:41 PM PDT by Starman417

One of the hardest propositions for conservatives to remain consistent on is the issue of federalism. We believe in federalism. We believe that the Constitution enshrined power to the states through the Tenth Amendment. We believe that that power has been eroded away through the years and want it restored.

The hard reality of our position is that some states may seek to push positions that we believe threaten liberty. Conservatives have lauded efforts by Arizona to protect their borders consistent with federal policies and Missouri's effort to nullify ObamaCare. But many have blasted California for essentially legalizing medical marijuana and New Hampshire's effort to block a national ID card.

The hard part about federalism is facing the reality that some states will do things we don't agree with. We need to learn to support those efforts and remain consistent. Limiting federal power should be our ultimate objective.

Recently a number of states—including some of the nation’s strongest conservative governors-- have undertaken an effort to overturn federal restrictions on the states collecting sales tax from the sale of online goods. And they have a point.

Despite our opposition to taxes, this is another example where federalism should triumph.

Constitutionally, the implementation of sales tax falls under the purview of the states—even when we dislike the taxes the states choose to implement. And current law is a clear abrogation of states’ constitutional authority. It is equally clear that In addition to abrogating states’ rights, current law creates a bias towards online retailers like Amazon.com at the expense of Main Street businesses.

(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: states; taxation

1 posted on 09/07/2012 3:34:43 PM PDT by Starman417
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Starman417
Everyone agrees the consumer wins when there is free market competition for our business.

The same applies in government. We loose in a monopoly.

2 posted on 09/07/2012 3:42:43 PM PDT by GregoTX (Federalist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Most of the onerous regulations against new, small manufacturing starts and most of the pushes for onerous taxes for the socialist political regulators come from the legislators and bureaucrats of each of most of the states, if not all of them. Most of the violations of property rights come from the same.

Whatever. We’ll starve the B. anyway, until its gobs of bipartisan groups and individual socialists have no more debt or time for politics. BTW, how’s the commie VAT tax demand from the same political regulators coming along?


3 posted on 09/07/2012 4:11:25 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-' 96)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

The Federal Government derives its power from the CITIZENS of this country. As such it is beholden to us to do our will, not their will.


4 posted on 09/07/2012 4:11:58 PM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Importantly, we can’t just pick and choose our federalism, either. We must go to the root of the problem, which is not just in congress, but also in the executive branch and the judiciary.

Perhaps these easiest of these hard things to do would be to downgrade the office of the presidency, with the help of congress, to eliminate those unconstitutional powers presidents have taken over time.

Presidents do not want to do this, so eventually we must nominate a candidate who will agree to have *less* power, not an easy task for the typical presidential egotist.

Next, the senate and house judiciary committees must agree to trim the authority of the judiciary in such a way that they stop usurping state authority by “legislating from the bench”.

Specifically, judges must be prohibited from forcing states to appropriate money to causes the judges favor. But they also must be limited to serious constitutional issues, not just nit-picking, with such things as the death penalty.

Finally, congress must reign in the out of control bureaucracy, eliminating broad parts that cannot be justified outside of gross misinterpretations of the constitution.


5 posted on 09/07/2012 4:26:13 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
Roe v Wade is a good example of where federalism was not given a chance. By discovering the "privacy" element in the Constitution the Supremes deprived each state the option to vote on and have the citizens voice heard. Hence the decades-old struggle to allow citizens to vote on this critical issue. I would not doubt that many blue (Why again are they blue and we are red - that makes no sense) states would vote to approve abortion in their states. But it would also allow many (most) states to say no. Those that want abortions would be so "inconvenienced" to travel to those states that approved.

Same with pot - hilarious to see the Obama administration attacking California pot dispensaries when the voters approved them. How was this element of our Constitution summarily deleted?

6 posted on 09/07/2012 4:29:29 PM PDT by corkoman (Release the Palin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Here in Oregon we have a new group that wants to force the Fed Gov’t to give up federally held lands to the counties. Some of our counties are almost totally owned by the feds & it’s really hard for them to maintain schools as there is no tax base.

We had a meeting with James Buchal last night - a candidate running for AG. I wish FReepers could’ve seen him. He is terrific! But when he was asked if we had any hope of taking back the lands, he said probably not. Unless we had very narrowly crafted state legislation using the police powers of the state to claim what the feds were doing was unsafe for Oregon’s people. Such as leaving bug-ridden dead trees in the forests which will eventually cause cataclysmic fires. Under that pretense the state could probably go in & legitimately log out those forests, but it’s possible any profit would have to be turned back to the feds.

Interesting what we have to go through to reclaim our country.


7 posted on 09/07/2012 5:10:19 PM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
Federalism is nice, but unless unhappy citizens in one state can carve out a new state from an old state, you just create 50 little tyrannies.

Creating a new state from an old state requires the consent of the old state. That's hard to obtain. The party in power rarely gives it up any of its power willingly. There should be a mechanism by which a large population can form its own state without needing another power's permission.

8 posted on 09/07/2012 5:21:01 PM PDT by conservative sympathizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
These days, the Federalist Papers are little more than TP.
9 posted on 09/07/2012 5:31:31 PM PDT by Arm_Bears (Re-distribute my work ethic, not my wealth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears
These days, the Federalist Papers are little more than TP.

On the other hand, the Antifederalist Papers are almost prophetic.

10 posted on 09/07/2012 8:09:41 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
Let me bottom line it for you.

I am a small businesswoman in Florida, and I pay an annual business license tax, and I am taxed on all of my business profits by the State of Florida.
I buy and sell a gadget that I call product A.
I buy most of my inventory from a factory in California that makes product A. I don't pay California sales taxes on my purchases, since I am buying from a California company to resale elsewhere.
Whatever number of A's I sell in Florida, I must collect and remit the local sales tax, to the State of Florida.
If I sell A to a tax exempt agency, I have to keep records for 7 years, proving I was not required to collect and remit sales taxes to them.
But I can legally sell the same widget in California,Utah, NY, and virtually every other states residents, without collecting or remitting sales taxes, as long as none of my employees reside in, or conducts retail sales activities, in those states.

I'm based in Florida, but A is so popular in Michigan, that I decide to hire a dedicated sales rep in Michigan to handle customer service issues.
I must now collect and remit Michigan sales taxes for every A sold in that state, since I hired a Michigan resident.
I also have to adjust my employee accounting system to adhere to Michigan laws.

I may decide it is worth it, or I may run the numbers and decide not to expand. That would be my call.

What all Internet “free-traders” want is an illogical exemption from all established federal and state business laws and all taxation systems.

I strongly suggest they buy lottery tickets Don't want to deal with any level of government taxes? Don't open a business, don't work for an employer, and don't expect any government taxpayer paid "benefits". Step away from the bong!

11 posted on 09/07/2012 8:13:08 PM PDT by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The genius of Patrick Henry is once again demonstrated.


12 posted on 09/09/2012 6:10:12 PM PDT by Arm_Bears (Re-distribute my work ethic, not my wealth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

If you read the laws, you will find buried such things like this (and I an paraphrasing):

Acts of Congress are territorial legislation...

The above used to be stated pretty clearly in USC 28 and I believe FRCrP, but these things get amended so that it’s not obvious.

So what’s that mean, why is it such a big deal?

Because they (Acts of Congress), IF THEY ARE TERRITORIAL, they simply don’t apply to the 50 states.

But to find out, you’d need the entire United States Statutes at Large, Annotated version, and the complete collection of US Reports, along with all the briefs and oral arguments...

In toto, probably more than the average house can hold!


13 posted on 09/09/2012 6:22:26 PM PDT by djf (The barbarian hordes will ALWAYS outnumber the clean-shaven. And they vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson