Posted on 07/29/2003 9:11:39 PM PDT by I_dmc
By
John MacMullin
After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government announced that it would preempt all state jurisdiction over airport security. The federal government preempted state powers without regard to balancing federal and state responsibilities so that these responsibilities, and related costs, could be distributed across federal, state, and local governments. To carry out this preemption, the federal government recently reported that it will employ more than 47,000 federal recruits in the fight against terrorism as newly trained security screeners. They are to begin working at 424 airports nationwide.
These developments, and numerous others in the past, remind us that there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. However, in the history of our country, it was not always this way. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures' power to appoint (and remove) United States Senators.
As such, the core of the problem with federal preemption lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment which abrogated the state legislatures' right to appoint United States Senators in favor of popular election of those officials. This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result, over time, in expanding federal control in every area. In addition to preemption issues, it caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.
The amendment also caused a fundamental breakdown in campaign finance issues with respect to United States Senators. As to United States Senators, campaign finance reform, which has been a hot topic in Congress, can be best achieved by repealing the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It should be readily apparent that United States Senators, once appointed by the state legislature, would have no need for campaign financing whatsoever.
(Excerpt) Read more at articlev.com ...
CFR was never about cleaning up corruption, there are a million and one ways for a congressmen or senator to be corrupt, and or a presidential canidate (for gods sake, the dem nominees are probably feeling sick about what Edwards is doing and breaking the CFR in every sick kind of way, and at the same time hurting them, go edwards). If anything, congress would probably pass CFR for all elections everywhere including state legislatures (10th amendment? didn't we repeal that, or does SCOTUS just no longer recognise it?).
IMO, not to any large extent, and perhaps not at all.
The states via the people in them seem to be quite willing to abrogate responsibility to the federal authorities.
In doing so they eliminate the responsibility and purportedly the legal burden.
Stupid huh?
Nothing pleases a legislature more than to say "it is a federal mandate", blah, blah and we must tax accordingly, blah blah or we cannot meet our obligations, blah, blah.
I see jails and prisons as the next items of responsibility to be turned over to the feds for the above reasons.
Until that happens, it's all talk.
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.