South Dakota Bill Would Require All Citizens To Buy A Gun

If you say the states aren't limited to the enumerated powers then they could violate the Bill or Rights, or any other part of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment explicitly extends those protections so the states actually are subject to many of the same limitations as the Federal government.

Even prior to the 14th Amendment Article IV enumerates certain powers to the states such as having a republican form of government. If the states weren't limited to enumerated powers then Maine could declare it self a Monarchy, Minnesota print its own money and Michigan decide not to extradite someone to Missouri.

Leaving that aside the term "enumerated powers" means powers spelled out by a some document establishing a government. As every state has a constitution they are also bound by the enumerated powers of their own Constitution.

 

States have a general police power that is lacking in the Federal government.
See here and here for some of the basics. The lack of restriction to enumerated powers does not enable the states to have slavery, because the supremacy clause of the Constitution makes federal law overrule state law when in conflict, and federal law prohibits slavery (under the 13th amendment).

 

Yes states have some powers that are lacking in the Federal government but your own post still shows they are limited to enumerated powers. A statement that says "states aren't limited to enumerated powers" is simply wrong as while they have some powers what the Fed government doesn't have they have limitations spelled out Constitutionally.

 

well put.

 

the Militia act is covered by the 2nd Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...").

 

What? Your response makes no sense. The 2nd amendment allows the freedom to have a gun and be part of a militia.

The Militia act requires private citizens to actually buy a gun. Surely you can see the difference between having the freedom to have something like guns or health insurance and being required to purchase it.

 

Here is the text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

All it says is that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed BECAUSE a militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

That said, I agree that the 2nd Amendment was the legal justification for it, while the Commerce Clause is the legal justification here. On those levels, the Commerce Clause is actually a stronger rationale than the 2nd Amendment was.

But regardless, that's not the moral argument being made by politicians - the argument against is that the government doesn't have the right to make you buy something. Period. Or more specifically in many cases, that the founding fathers never intended the federal government to have that power. There are no qualifications or justifications or "except guns" or anything like that. On that argument, they clearly fail based on the Militia Act.

 

I don't think you understand what enumerated powers means. Being limited to enumerated powers means you can only do what the constitution specifically says you CAN do. Article I Section 8 establishes what laws can be passed by Congress (with some additional powers granted later in amendments). If there is nowhere in the US Constitution that says Congress has the power to regulate something, then they cannot pass a law regulating that thing. The expansion of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause have weakened this restriction in the last 100 years, but the idea of enumerated powers at the federal level still exists.

Based on the US Constitution, states can do everything except what they are specifically FORBIDDEN from doing. Having Constitutional limitations on powers are not the same as being limited to enumerated powers. This is basically what is stated in the 10th amendment. The entire balance of powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by it to the states is reserved to the states or the people.

 

More mandating:

Some Texas Dog Owners Barking Mad Over Proposal to Mandate Dog Insurance


By Diane Macedo

Published February 18, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Dog owners in Texas are hot under the collar over a proposal that would require them to buy $100,000 insurance for their pooches.

And they've vowed not to roll over and play dead for what they're calling yet another example of needless nanny-state legislation.

House Bill 998, introduced by state Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-Texas, would require owners of unleashed, un-neutered male dogs over 20 pounds to carry a liability insurance policy of at least $100,000. Violations would be classified as a misdemeanor, and punishable by a fine up to $500.

McClendon said large, un-neutered dogs present the highest risk for property damage and injuries to others, and that owners should be held more responsible for their dogs' behavior.

But getting HB 998 passed -- the bill is currently under review by committee -- will be no walk in the park.

"There is a movement inside the animal rights lobby to try to force mandatory spay and neuter laws across the states, and this is just another way to get at it," said Rob Sexton, vice president of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. The group, which works with sporting dogs, calls the bill "unnecessary and unreasonable" and has asked Texas sportsmen to actively oppose it.

McClendon says she's just trying to take a bite out of a loophole.

"Existing Texas law allows a dog 'one bite' without making the owner responsible. However, it is clearly not working to resolve problems with dog bites," she told FoxNews.com. "According to county animal-control personnel, over 400 dog bites occur in San Antonio each month."

McClendon said one of the victims was a member of her district who was seriously attacked by a dog whose owner was not willing to help pay for the resulting medical bills.

"Situations like this would be remedied under this bill, as insurance would help cover medical expenses incurred as a result of a dog attack," she said.

McClendon added that a revision of the bill is being drafted to apply the law only within incorporated municipal areas; it would also exclude dog owners in hunting and sporting activities in less-populated areas.

Trial Attorney Herb Subin said he thinks the proposal is a great idea.

"It's the same as driving a car," Subin told FoxNews.com. "If you want to have the chance to have a dog that could cause an injury to someone else then the government has a very strong interest to make sure their citizens have the ability to be compensated."

But pet expert and author Wendy Diamond said the same argument can be made for children.

"There are more bullies at school playgrounds than dog fights in dog parks," Diamond insisted. "The government is overreaching with the proposed bill ... when they demand liability insurance on children then this will be fair."

The Heartland Institute's Charlie Vidal added that if McClendon is trying to reduce dog attacks, she's barking up the wrong tree.

"While Jones McClendon wants to protect people from large dogs, her proposal would do just the opposite. Dog owners, knowing that they are insured against any wrongdoing their dog does, will take less care to ensure that Rex is a good boy," Vidal wrote on the institute's blog.

Fox News Legal Analyst Lis Wiehl said dog owners need not worry, and predicted a dog insurance law wouldn't survive a court challenge.

"The whole issue of mandating insurance is being dealt with right now in federal courts with healthcare, and the latest decision says that it's not constitutional to mandate health insurance. So how could you mandate insurance for your dog?" she told FoxNews.com.

Wiehl said the law already holds dog owners responsible for any damage done by their dogs. And victims of dog attacks that haven't been properly compensated can always sue.

"Most homeowner's insurance policies already cover dogs," she added. "The whole thing is ridiculous."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/1...g-mad-proposal-mandate-dog-insurance/#content

 

You may disagree with the founding fathers and authors of the constitution belief that the govt. can mandate the purchase of things such as insurance or other goods.

I guess I'm more of a strict constitutionalist than you, and would prefer to stick close the intent of our founding fathers and the people who wrote the constitution.

But was this article about a state doing something and not the Federal govt?

 

Sorry I missed this earlier and you bring up some good points. That said the Constitution does specifically enumerate certain things to states such as that they must provide a republican type of government. I am willing to agree that the states under the 10th Amendment does allow them to have more powers but there are limitations and clearly the statement about a republican form of government is an enumeration that limits them to one type of government.

Also you are forgetting that every state has its own constitution that enumerates powers to them.

 

That is not an enumerated power, it is a limitation on power. States cannot have any form of government except for that one. The constitution is not granting the states the power to form state governments, those predate the Constitution.

Except that it isn't an enumeration of a power, it is a limitation on state power.

I am not forgetting that every state has it's own Constitution. I am no expert on state constitutions, but could you point me to where say the Texas Constitution enumerates the powers of the state legislature? It should look something like Article I section 8 of the US Constitution: Powers of Congress.

 

Except the phrasing of it is as an enumeration. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Note also this clause is in the article regarding the States.

I agree for practical purposes it is a limitation but the wording of it is as an enumerated power saying that the only power states have in regard to organizing their government is as a republican government and the US guarantees them that.

As far as states having the power to form governments yes that predates the Constitution but many things predate the Constitution that were overruled in it such as extradition between states. As an organizing document of the formation of our government theoretically they could've done away with the ability of states to form their own government.

I have to admit I know very little about the Texas Constitution but just skimming it there Article 2 spells out the division of power, Article 3 list several powers of the legislature to form which committees and issue what type of bonds, Article 16 also list out several powers that the government has. I will say though that I had heard the Texas Constitution was complex and it looks like it will take a while to dig into it but at a glance it does appear to enumerate powers to the Texas government.

To my original point I will agree that state governments have a greater flexibility than the Fed but I don't agree with a blanket statement that they are not limited to enumerated powers. I will agree though that the language of what is an enumerated power versus what is a just a limitation appears fuzzy.