Harwood: US Doesn’t Know Best

21 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  moscow_minidoka on March 09 at 9:43 a.m.

  We have been fighting about the balance between state and federal gov’t since the creation of this nation.

  I find it convenient that he mentions “hot button” issues that irk a lot of “real” Idahoans, but neglects to mention all the federal money that keeps this state going. Think of highways, medicare/aid, funding of schools, universities, INL, etc.

  Does he have a point? Perhaps… but he mostly sounds like a hypocrite and/or a demagogue. He may reflect the feelings of most St. Maries residents (and in that regard, is doing his job), but quite a few of us “not real” Idahoans are actually in favor of the ESA, air quality standards, the EPA, and other public safety measures. Without the federal gov’t mandates, can you imagine the unrestrained violation of pristine Idaho for commercial profit?

• 

  idawa on March 09 at 9:52 a.m.

  The age old debate between the state and the feds…eh. In some area the states are sovereign, but I’m a little disappointed to see a legislator actually state that the federal government is the State’s “agent.” Has he ever read the Constitution?

  “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” Article VI, Paragraph 2.

  Further, in amendment XIV, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

  While there can be debate over which area of law the Federal government can occupy, in those area where it does, the Federal government’s power is supreme. To make an argument that the federal government is an agent of the states is just.simply.wrong.

• 

  Aliasjax on March 09 at 10:17 a.m.

  Idawa…I think by “agent” Harwood rightly asserts the notion that the federal government was assigned tasks, such as common defence, by the states while the states themselves retained their perogotive in all other matters. Capping on Harwood for using the term “agent” is a non-starter. His use of the term is correct. The federal government was created by an intentionally limited list of authorities, 17 of them to be specific, given it by the several states to act on their behalf - as an agent.

• 

  Sisyphus on March 09 at 10:51 a.m.

  Ajax, idawa has it correct. Really if you want to harken back on the structure of government like that, you’ll pretty much have to erase our history, specifically the civil war and aftermath, and the consequential evolution of the Constitution with the addition of the 13, 14, and 15 amendments. Maybe Dick should join a chapter of the society for creative anachronism. His ridiculous worthless legislation definitely puts him squarely in the fringe faction. I would hope the people of St. Maries didn’t elect him to waste time like he’s doing.

• 

  idawa on March 09 at 10:56 a.m.

  Alias - that argument has been made before and rejected 200 years ago… To quote Justice Marshall in McCulloch when confronting the argument that the State created the federal government to act on their behalf…

  “The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing congress of the United States, with a request that it might ‘be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.’ This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states-and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.”

  Federal power does not come from the States, the power comes from the people. The federal government is not an agent of the states.

  Further, you are forgetting about the implied power in the “necessary and proper” clause…the list of enumerated power is not the only powers the framers gave our federal government.

• 

  Beez on March 09 at 11:06 a.m.

  The Civil War is over. Harwood’s side lost. Deal with it.

• 

  Aliasjax on March 09 at 12:33 p.m.

  Semantics, idawa…By “states” it is meant “The People” who also give the states their power through delegation - it’s called the consent of the governed.” What Marshall’s ruling said was that The People, not the states, are sovereign. I think Harwoord would agree, but Marshall’s ruling is still limited to the “limited powers” doctrine, and doesn’t apply to powers not enumerated; however, that said, I’ll not argue with you that “necessary and proper” and the commerce clause have expanded federal power beyond these limits…but the notion that the federal government doesn’t act on the behalf of the states in a like-manner of an agent denies the plainly observable. The question here is did Harwood mean “agent” in a legal sense? I doubt it. His reference sounded more common useage.

  And, just to be clear, I’m no defender of Harwood - I don’t even know the guy. I just thought that taking the position that the fed isn’t an agent of the state missed his point: that states (that is, The People) do indeed have rights which can be excercised through the states, and maybe states should renew that debate. His non binding letter to the Feds is pandering, I agree, to some of his constiguents - and a waste of time.

• 

  Transplanted_Texan on March 09 at 1:25 p.m.

  Reminds me of when state legislatures elected Senators, giving those state governments some control over half of Congress. The House was the voice of the people, and the Senate the voice of the states.

• 

  idawa on March 09 at 1:37 p.m.

  semantics - not hardly. The “States” and the “People” are not synonymous. At least not to Justice Marshall nor the nearly continuous line of legal reasoning since. Harwood (and you) would be correct if you had stated that that the Federal Government is an agent of “The People.” I suppose that might be what he meant, but I doubt it, he clearly said “State” as referring to 50 sovereign States. To imply that the federal government is an agent of the “States” is completely erroneous.

  The “People” have consented to two primary authorities, the States and the Federal Government, and have divided power accordingly. Those powers the “People” have given to the Fed is Supreme; it bows to no other Sovereign, including the “States.” If the Federal Government has power in an area, then the federal law preempts any State law that contradicts if the two laws cannot be reconciled. The argument that Federal is subservient to the States is an old argument that has consistently been a looser in the face of the plain language of the Constitution; however, it just won’t seem to go away.

  I am fine with people like Harwood trying to argue that the fed has reached into area it has no power over, that is a legitimate beef. However, I can think of no definition of agent, legal or common, that makes this petition anything but non-sensical. States do not have the power to pick and choose which administration they will follow merely because they disagree (which is what this is driving at, btw, the republican states just don’t want to have to follow a real democratic administration).

• 

  Aliasjax on March 09 at 2:14 p.m.

  “Those powers the “People” have given to the Fed is Supreme; it bows to no other Sovereign, including the “States.” -Idawa

  That power takes precendent over the states’ power in those areas of divided power, but it does (or should) still bow to the sovereignty of The People from whom the Feds and the States derive those powers. If the People are indeed the grantors of power, then they retain the right to recind those powers; and they do that through their respective states just as they created the feds through their state legislatures.

  The problem that Harwood is addressing is that the Feds have over reached, and I agree with you, he’s probably right. His trouble is that he has the same trouble the feds do, neither the states nor the federal government believe/or act as if the People are sovereign.

• 

  idawa on March 09 at 3:00 p.m.

  The power of the federal government does bow to the power of “the People” via elections or Constitutional amendments - not the State Legislators. Even when amendments are petition by States they must first go through Convention before being ratified by the State legislature or State Conventions (ie, the states legislators have no power themselves to amend the constitution, only the people within those states do). Barring those, the power of the national majority expressed via the Federal Government trumps states’ rights in any arena the Federal Government has power. A handful of disgruntled states (be they Republican or Democrat) over the direction of the nation can not thwart a federal majority by expressing Sovereignty. Again, we fought a war over this and the State’s rights people lost - badly. I embrace the notion of State power and will help you defend it, but this petition wrongly confuses State power with Agency and misstates the relationship between the State and the Federal Governments.

  I am personally done beating this horse, if someone else wants to try, they are more than welcome.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic