Replies

USC, as in the University of Southern California? I’m not sure what you are referring to.

I wrote two FReeper Education articles on federalism.

Last October I published Federalism: Yesterday and Today. Following the article I credited the books from which I drew my content. I slighted the period after the New Deal in order to reach a conclusion in a more expeditious manner because the essay was running too long. I think you commented on that thread.

Last March I published Reflections on the 82nd Anniversary of the New Deal. This covered the New Deal period and beyond at a deeper level. Some day, I’ll find a way to merge the two articles. I don’t think you saw that thread.

Asked and answered many times but I'll happily 'splain it to you again ;')

When the individual states assembled and joined into a union they confirmed upon that collective union of states certain powers. Those powers were more closely enumerated and defined when we met again to ratify the Constitution. That's the way the country was wired, first in 1777 with the Articles of Confederation, and again in 1788 with the ratification of the United States Constitution.

Article I (Article 1 - Legislative) of the Constitution spells out duties and responsibilities of Congress.

Section 10
1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Thus no states may enter into independent confederacies - only Congress possesses that authority.

Article II (Article 2 - Executive) establishes the role of the executive (president).

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial) defines the duties and responsibilities of the judicial branch - essentially the Supreme Court.

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Thus the Constitution grants the Supreme Court (the collective states) authority and jurisdiction over disputes between states.

Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations) defines the relationship of the states to the whole.

Section 3
1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Thus it is up to Congress to admit or expel states. In the event of a circumstance such as happened with West Virginia, it is up to Congress plus the affected states to make such a division. Individual states do not possess the authority to do so - not legally at any rate.

To recap: yes it is a case of the federal government telling the states what they can and cannot do - that is the way the law was designed. No, it doesn't go against the 10th amendment because the Constitution granted the appropriate powers to both the Congress to define and organize the states and to the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between the states.

Glad I could help.