I thought this was kindof cool even being a little ridiculous... edit: by "even being a little ridiculous" I mean "and awesome."

Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas’ Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment

Full text of this bill can be found here.

Nothing ridiculous about the Constitution!

I thought this was cool. I'm glad that Texas is stepping up and asserting their constitutional rights.

An interesting (and ultimately pointless) exercise. Especially this part:

RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that
directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal
penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation
or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed;

that asserts a right to federal funding that would be really hard to justify, doesn't it?

[Warning: As Ranger pointed out, I'm in a really testy mood today. Maybe the impending Aggie invasion is part of it.]

(04-14-2009 02:58 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  An interesting (and ultimately pointless) exercise. Especially this part:

RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that
directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal
penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation
or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed;

that asserts a right to federal funding that would be really hard to justify, doesn't it?

[Warning: As Ranger pointed out, I'm in a really testy mood today. Maybe the impending Aggie invasion is part of it.]

You're right. Because it's not like Texas would ever actually secede. It is a ceremonial thing, more about the appearance of it, than an actual practical application. I still think it's pretty cool. Maybe I'm just buying in to the appearance side of it, but it's nice to see that our state government is at least willing to make a show of taking a stand against big government.

OK, then. Enough of the grandstanding. How about actually doing something about it? How about actually challenging some of these mandates in court? At the end of the day, this resolution doesn't change things one bit. You haven't changed the workings with the federal government one iota by putting on a show for the press. If you truly believe it, then make it bleepin' happen.

You certainly don't need a state legislature resolution to actually do that. <soapbox>This is symptomatic of what's wrong with all politicians - they give words, but don't back them up. Time to deliver, folks. I don't care what part of the aisle you're on, but if you truly believe that (and in some ways, I do), then you darn well better actually do something about it. Otherwise, you're going to be issuing idle threats and grand near-tautologies that are as effective as the UN in dealing with North Korea and Iran.</soapbox>

And just as an aside, if you want to turn down the federal money, that's fine. Just be prepared to actually cut services or raise taxes to cover some of the stuff that might otherwise be funded. Again, I'm with him on some of the stuff (like the lack of future funding for the added unemployment benefits that won't be removed in the future), but it's a fine line that the state governments have gotten themselves into, by depending on federal largess to backfill revenue that otherwise would have to be raised with state taxes. (Not that that is a bad idea, localizing the costs instead of what is essentially a federal "insurance"-style funding arrangement to cover higher costs in certain parts of the country.)

Technically speaking, it's a resolution, not a bill.

Also technically speaking, the states don't "lose" federal funding. Federal expenditures are authorized each year by the Congress, who can and do put restrictions on such funding. "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." Such appropriations laws are made annually (or if not, there is an interruption of government). Even if written to be multi-year, a succeeding Congress is not bound from overturning a prior Congress' appropriations law.

Of course, a strict reading of the text of the Constitution may not hold that to be the case, since neither Blackstone's 1765 commentary that "Acts of parliament derogatory from the power of subsequent parliaments bind not" and the numerous US cases upholding same are not contained in the Constitution as an explicit restriction on Congress' power.