[robertpaulsen]

"So if the federal government subverts federalism by withholding money, so should the states."

Just the opposite.

If the states subvert the Supremacy Clause, the federal government has no obligation to send them money that won't be spent on the intended purpose.

You want to take this one specific incident and generalize it into a whole different topic. Fine. But you can do it without my participation.

[Spike Spiegel]

Both the money, and the federal government itself, originates in the states.

The supremacy clause exists independently of the money issue.

If federal drug laws were legitimate, they could rest on the supremacy clause itself, and need no threat of funding cuts. Do you think the governor of California should be clapped in irons for telling his staties to stand down? THAT would bring matters to a head.

[tacticalogic]

If the states subvert the Supremacy Clause, the federal government has no obligation to send them money that won't be spent on the intended purpose.

The federal government has no obligtion to send them money at all. Somewhere along the line the idea that it's the job of the federal government to re-distribute money became popular, along with the idea that popularity is sufficient authorization.

[Protagoras]

You want to take this one specific incident and generalize it into a whole different topic. Fine. But you can do it without my participation.

ROTFLMAO

That translates into, "Oh my goodness, my imbecilic position has been exposed"!