Apparently so, if one reads the constitution. “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state..” Stated in Article IV reads fairly clear.
But where are the limits? If one were to go with that part as it has been interpreted, the congress then has power to declare all land to be under it’s jurisdiction, and subject no longer to the respective states, right? Obviously not if practice is our guide. At some point there is a limit where the states retain control over their respective borders. A further restraint on the ability of the federal government and Congress to simply take over land.
Yes, it is ALSO in the constitution. And YES, it has been ignored. Article 1 Section 8 clearly sets forth a manner under which the federal government may acquire and control property.
“To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; ..”
As-in "be there" for KrisAnne Hall's discussion on the 10th amendment.
KrisAnne Hall back in Michigan.
I have heard her speak a number of times, and each time walk away with a greater understanding of our constitution. I also have developed a better sense for what needs to be done to hold our out of control government in check, and return us to the nation of states (versus a nation with states) as our founders intended.
AFP: Michigan Should Join States Refusing Compliance with EPA’s Power Grab
“Any regulatory road we choose leads to the same federally defined destination,” says Lund
Lansing, Mich. – Michigan can and should join other states that are refusing compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s power grab. That was the message from the grassroots free-market group Americans for Prosperity-Michigan in response to an announcement from the Michigan Agency for Energy that the state would develop a blueprint for reaching “targets” imposed by the Obama Administration under the so-called Clean Power Plan.
“Michigan shouldn’t put up with the Obama Administration’s regulatory bullying tactics at the expense of energy consumers,” said Pete Lund, state director of Americans for Prosperity-Michigan. “It is just ridiculous to believe Michigan can maintain control of our energy future if we cave to the EPA’s demands. Any regulatory road we choose to include in our state blueprint leads to the same federally defined destination—one that even President Obama acknowledges will result in higher prices for consumers.”
States should no longer issue licenses for marriage whatsoever.
Already the federal government has determined whether we are capable of governing our own health choices. The ACA made sure that we are to buy THEIR preferred type of insurance or pay dearly for the failure to do so. The executive office driven EPA has determined that the coal fired plants in Michigan are not worthy of our electric payments, and that we would be better off blacked out and without lights (wait until 2017 folks!)
After today’s ruling it is quite clear that the state of Michigan needs a hands (or paws) off policy with regard to marriage. The federal government has assumed the responsibility for who is eligible for the license necessary to achieve marital bliss as of this morning. Logically it makes no sense to further burden the stae of Michigan’s legislative code with marriage requirements that have no meaning or cultural protections. Reasonable people can agree that such language only occupies our books and takes up space.
Our appropriate place in this great experiment of AmeriKa has ended.
The occupiers of the white-house have made it clear that a living constitution CAN be achieved if the push is strong enough. And if the stacking of the court has been properly done, there are numerous goals that can be met, never before imagined.
Appeals Court ruling will likely move the test of our constitution to the US Supreme Court.
Michigan has the RIGHT to determine its own marriage law.
In an about-damned-time move, a Federal Appeals court short circuits the freight train of moral relativism that has been messing with the hearts and minds of our nations youth and impressionable politicians. As Fox News reports:
“The ruling concluded that states have the right to set rules for marriage.”
Indeed they do.
In fact, you can thank the court for clarifying what the US constitution has already guaranteed; That it’s none of the federal government’s business. There is no place in the construct of our nation that allows a single judge to override the will of the people to determine their own state’s social construct. It isn’t provided for, and frankly a sanction should be forthcoming for any judge who attempts to legislate from the bench.
When placing a nut on a bolt, there is an axiomatic reality that must be observed; two nuts don’t go together, and likewise neither will two bolts.
Its not a function of discrimination, or the hating of the thought that no two similar pieces of hardware unite, but rather a simple fact that bolts require a nut to function properly, and conversely the nut needs a bolt. The hardware is designed to mate and perform a function. And because bolt on bolt action doesn’t work, doesn’t mean that those same Bolts cannot find a matching Nut.
Nut on Bolt is still perfectly legal and allowed by design.
Making national news today, Detroit pastors Ministers, and other leaders of faith stood their ground in defense of traditional marriage, and for the integrity of Michigan Voters’ 2004 decision to maintain the definition of Marriage as that between a Man and a Woman.The video of the press conference
Clearly, we dodged a bullet by not establishing a state run exchange. The AG appears to be watching for 'ricochets.'
For anyone who wondered WHY we did not establish a state run exchange, the answer is clearly about surrendering authority.
Not unlike the camel’s nose, the exchange was a buy-in to undermine state sovereignty. Fortunately, Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette appears to be trying to make sure the mandate does NOT apply to Michigan residents. From MLive:
Attorney General Bill Schuette is arguing an IRS rule offering tax credits to individuals buying health insurance on the federal exchange from states without their own exchanges violates the U.S. Constitution.
The argument was made in a “friend of the court” brief filed in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where individuals and businesses from states without insurance exchanges are challenging the ability of the IRS to offer tax credits for buying insurance through the federally established exchange.
Schuette and the attorneys general for Kansas and Nebraska argue that allowing the IRS to offer the credits overrules the decisions not to set up exchanges under the Affordable Care Act that 34 states made and is invalid under the Tenth Amendment.
Schuette’s on the right track.
Additionally, it should be noted that this might not be the most popular move, and could be painful to his campaign in the general. As many Michiganians are expecting a federal subsidy, it may not happen or they may lose that subsidy if this action is successful.