New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) - A way to defeat Council of Governors?

oyez.org ^ | June 1992 | SCOTUS

[Aracelis]

Remember this case, for it may have a great deal to do with this Council of Governors: New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)

"In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld two of the three provisions of the Act under review, reasoning that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to use financial rewards and access to disposal sites as incentives for state waste management. The third provision, the "take-title" qualification, stipulated that states must take legal ownership and liability for low-level waste or by the regulatory act. "Either type of federal action," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "would 'commandeer' state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution's division of authority between federal and state governments." This last provision violated the Tenth Amendment."

[Aracelis]

However, given the current SCOTUS...

[rae4palin]

Thanks for the post on this breaking issue. And I share your sentiments. Doesn’t seem to matter what the law says anymore.

[Aracelis]

States rights trump Federal power-grabs. We’ll see this debated not only for the miserable healthcare debacle, but also this issue.

It all seems to be following the “Amerika” script.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The trouble is determining who has standing to challenge it. The “COG” is being created by executive order specifically to do an end-around legal challenges. About all I can imagine is if a State files suit against the administration.

[Scotsman will be Free]

“States rights trump Federal power-grabs.”
This notion was put to rest, probably forever, in 1865.

[djf]

It’s never been overturned, not even in part.

I first read this case about 1995 and realized right away the significance, if there was a top ten USSC case list for the last hundred years, it’s on it.

And there are things talked about in it that go far beyond the limitations of the federal power over the states, the structure of government itself is discussed pretty thoroughly.

Suffice to say that a large part of what gets done in Washington and how it gets done is blatantly unconstitutional, and I’ll leave it at that.

[sergeantdave]

“This notion was put to rest, probably forever, in 1865.”

Maybe not...

The majority of riflemen are in the south, and Joshua Chamberlain left the Northeast 100 years ago and he ain’t coming back. Should king obuma order his brigade of bed-wetting New York metrosexuals south to hit Gov. Perry over the head with a wet poodle, I’d bet 99% will be busy surfing bikini.com and can’t be pried from the recliner.

[Scotsman will be Free]

“...Joshua Chamberlain left the Northeast 100 years ago and he ain’t coming back.”
True. I suspect the reason why the NE is such a mess is that the best of them were laid under the sod 1861 through 1865. Most of the current descendants are from the draft dodgers, those who paid others to fulfill their enlistments, deserters and remfs.
A huge percentage of career military have been Southerners. Speaking of riflemen, I’ve got to get back out to the range and continue practicing my shoot and scoot.

[Condor51]

I just saw that thread on Barry's EO and this 'Council of Governors'. Its sooooo illegal and unconstitutional Barry must have been smoking something when he wrote it.

An EO only pertains to the operations of the Executive branch of gubmint and those who work for the Executive, the POTUS - unless said EO further acted upon by congress and made into a law,a LEGAL law. So Barry may have well issued an EO organizing:

A Council of Federal Legislators
Or a
Council of Federal Judges

Not to mention that even IF he could legally authorize said council, the Ten State Governors in this EO have no say so or power over the other Forty State Governors.

Barry can take this EO and wipe his butt with it, its that legal.

I want to know who took all his tests in college and law school because this moron sure didn't

[Aracelis]

I first read this case about 1995 and realized right away the significance

It was startling to read Justice O'Connor's very clear and direct response, that even I could understand:

"Either type of federal action," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "would 'commandeer' state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution's division of authority between federal and state governments."

Very specifically, she used the word "commandeer", which according to Merriam-Webster means:

1 a : to compel to perform military service, b : to seize for military purposes,
2 : to take arbitrary or forcible possession of

What is unclear to me is her reference to "the Constitution's division of authority between federal and state governments", however the mere fact that she mentioned that there exists a separation of authorities is significant.