I ask this in reference to equal protection under the law. If the federal government is paying for state deficits created by benefits programs instituted by individual states that citizens of other states do not enjoy, doesn't that create a situation where tax-payers are paying for benefits that they had nothing do with? Isn't that the same logic for which the U.S. Revolution was waged... i.e., "taxation without representation?" BTW, I am in NO WAY proposing civil unrest or war. I just think the stimulus is poorly constructed. While I feel it is a terrible resolution, I do hope it works. Too many people's lives would be adversely effected if it were to fail.
You do have representation in the Stimulus Bill. You voted for someone who went to Congress and voted for or against it.
Taxpayers don't have standing to challenge the constitutionality of government spending. This was decided in 1923 in Massachusetts v. Mellon.
It would to any earmark. The part of the stimulus that I think might be Unconstitutional is the so-called Mark Sanford amendment. Sanford had threatened to refuse any Federal funds for South Carolina, and Jim Clyburn put in a clause that said that if the governor refused, he could be overridden by his legislature. Effectively, Congress dictated the legislative process to the states.
I hadn't heard about that. Even if that was unConstitutional, though, the court'd likely invalidate that clause and leave the rest alone. I'm also not feeling the equal protection argument.
Agreed. And it would take so long to be ruled on that most of the money would be spent anyway. It would only be notable as precedent for the future.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/victory-for-populism.html Another piece that may be unconstitutional, Chris Dodd added a provision that retroactively limits bonuses for firms that received bailout money. I'm pretty sure that's an ex post facto law.
it is as constitutional the bill, passed by the then Republican-controlled Congress and signed off by W, to fund the "bridge to nowhere"
stuck in the past are we? In reality if you read the constitution the federal government is very limited as to what they can do, as Obama graciously pointed out. Over time this has been slowly eroded up until the abomination known as the 16th amendment was passed, at which time congress became a bureaucratic spend thrift. This was further excellerated and exacerbated by FDR and the many congresses up until the present day.
The Amendments to the Constitution are prohibitions to what Congress can do, so I don't think my representation in the matter supercedes my arguement. Additionally, the clause reportedly added to the bill that allows state leglisatures to bypass the state governors is CERTAINLY unconstitutional. Surely, if President Bush had done this, there would be a higher level of outrage. President Obama has the votes in Congress to do a great deal to lead this country in the manner he sees fit, but he should abide by the document he swore to uphold.
Wasn't your whole argument that you weren't getting representation: Isn't that the same logic for which the U.S. Revolution was waged... i.e., "taxation without representation?"
I would disagree with this mainly because of semantics, but I feel these semantics present a powerful case. The abominable bridge to nowhere was a federal project. These state deficits were largely created by seperate bodies of government that failed to provide funds to pay for them. In my view, asking citizens of states who's voters had no vote in the creation of these deficits is both immoral and unconstitutional. I repeat that I do support our President, but I feel he should follow the same rules that so many on this board would hold their opposition to.
It wasn't my whole arguement, but to your point, I believe my representation was dilluted by the fact that my vote was not specifically counted towards the creation of the deficits of these states.
ur one who pretends that the past never happened how partisan of you. on the topic of reckless spending, you never mention W. FDR resusitated the US economy caused by the incompetence of Herbert Hoover. FDR's stimulus plan worked.
That's the only part I was commenting on. Wild Bill - the stimulus plan passes through Congress including representatives you elected. that the states ran up their debt is a precursor...but just becuase the states did so, didn't mean that Congress (including your representative) had to address it. 2 separate things.
True the Ammendments limit what Congress can do but under the a republican form of government you still have representation and if Congress as a whole decides to fund individual states you haven't been denied equal protection. If your argument is that anytime the Congress spends money that only benefits one part of the country without benefitting the country as a whole equally then almost no spending bill could ever get passed since its unlikely that any spending bill could be shown to have equal benefit. I can see Constitutional problems with that clause and further it seems unneccessary since the state legislatures could themselves enact legislation to accept the stimulus money. The beauty of our system though is that we a check on the Executive and Congress and if there is an argument about the Constitutionality of legislation a court case can always be taken up. Given that Obama was a law professor I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in regard to what he thinks is Constitutional.
