Pirate's Cove

Of course, it’s easy for the NY Times to say, since Sanctuary State NY is not a border state

Fight Over Texas Law Underscores a Battle of America vs. Its States

The face-off between Texas and the federal government over whether the state can enforce its own immigration policy reflects a broader and recurring feature of American politics: a number of hot-button issues have become proxy battles over who gets to decide.

During the Trump administration, Democratic-run states like California and blue cities like New York waged legal fights over their right to pass sanctuary laws to protect migrants. Now, the conflict over whether Texas can arrest and deport migrants is just one part of a larger campaign that red states have directed at the Biden administration. (snip)

The balance of power between the national government and states has been a source of tensions in the United States since its founding, leading to the Civil War. But in the 21st century, as partisan polarization has intensified, it has morphed into a new dynamic, with states controlled by the party opposed to the president regularly testing the boundaries.

Two points. First, there would be no need for Texas to do anything if the federal government was performing their job as designated by the US Constitution, repel invasion (Article I, Section 8, paragraph 15). They also are given the power to determine Naturalization laws. However, however, other than “repel invasion”, the Constitution does not specially delegate all powers exclusively to the federal government. It’s more like power sharing with the States at that point. And each state has the authority under the 10th Amendment to protect its borders and its citizens. If the Congress wants to pass a law restricting States, well, they can try. It might not last.

Sanctuary jurisdictions do violate federal law in as they look to protect those unlawfully present in the U.S. Many laws are violated.

Second, states should test the power of the federal government, since Los Federales have assumed way too much power, power they do not have the authorization to take. Look, if California wants to ban fossil fueled vehicles and do single payer healthcare, have at it. That’s their right under the 10th Amendment. And if citizens do not like that, they can move to another state and still be in America.

The political issues run the gamut — and include topics like abortion, gun control, same-sex marriage and even marijuana legalization — but the larger pattern is clear: Whenever one party wins control of the central government, the other party uses its control of various states to try to resist national policies.

“We’re seeing stuff we’ve never seen in the modern era,” said Heather K. Gerken, the dean of Yale Law School who has written about contemporary federalism. “It’s really stunning what kind of proxy war is taking place. It’s all because the vicious partisanship that has long been a feature of Washington has now filtered down to the states.”

States should be doing this all the time. The feds have too much power, too much dominance, too much interference. They take too much in taxation, and spend too much. They are often failing at their core duties as laid out in Article I, Section 8. If the proper power shifted back to the states and The People (remember, the 10th says ““The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”“) a lot of the issues would trend much lower, since people would be paying attention more to their state government, rather than the feds. And then state officials would have their feet held to the fire much more.

A clause in the Constitution says that federal statutes are supreme, and the traditional understanding is that where federal and state law conflict, federal law prevails. At the same time, the Constitution only grants certain powers to the federal government and reserves the rest to states. In practice, the powers of both levels often overlap.

I’m shocked the NY Times noted this reality. So, let’s repeal the 17th Amendment so that Senators are appointed by the state legislatures, and would then vote the way those legislatures want, rather than beholden to their nation parties and rich folks/companies in other states. They would represent the will of their states. Term limits for the House (4 terms, cannot run in any other district or state again). Restrict campaign donations to no more than 2% from outside of a district, that 2% is based on how much was spent the previous election cycle. That would be for starters.

Read: NY Times Seems Upset That States Have A Say, Especially Over Illegal Immigration »