Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

LauraMohr

Subscribe to LauraMohr's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Friday, June 11, 2021

Jeffrey Toobin is back at CNN eight months after exposing himself on Zoom read more


Sunday, June 06, 2021

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, said former President Donald Trump would have lost in Texas in the 2020 election if his office had not successfully blocked counties from mailing out applications for mail-in ballots to all registered voters. read more


Saturday, June 05, 2021

Benjy Sarlin and Sahil Kapur: When President Barack Obama abandoned a public insurance option to win moderate support for the Affordable Care Act in 2009, progressives were enraged. A decade later, Joe Biden campaigned on making the public option a reality, but so far, he's done little to get Congress to enact one. read more


Friday, May 28, 2021

One would think that the experience that the party had the last time it took a hatchet to the filibuster would warn it off any repeat, but institutional memories aren't exactly long in Washington these days. read more


Tuesday, May 25, 2021

Olsen added that under the Republican Study Committee's plan, Medicare's structure "would also be thoroughly transformed." That's an understatement: Medicare currently exists as a guaranteed benefit for seniors, providing coverage through a robust government insurance program. The RSC intends to replace Medicare with a new model in which seniors would get a subsidy to purchase private insurance, and in the instances in which the Republicans' health care coupon doesn't cover enough of the costs, the out-of-pocket burdens for the elderly would be considerable. read more


Comments

#34
Irrelevant in this context. See the "anti-commandeering doctrine" article linked at 19.

POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2021-06-16 12:10 AM | REPLY

You're full of Bullocks.

www.scotusblog.com

The anti-commandeering doctrine says that the federal government cannot require states or state officials to adopt or enforce federal law. The Supreme Court created the doctrine out of the 10th Amendment and related federalism principles in two cases, New York v. United States in 1992, and Printz v. United States in 1997. But outside the court's rulings in those cases, the doctrine has no basis in constitutional law.

First, the doctrine has no basis in the text and structure of the Constitution. If anything, the text and structure point in the other direction. For example, the supremacy clause makes the Constitution and federal laws supreme over state constitutions and state laws; it also binds state judges to the Constitution and federal law. The oath clause requires state legislators and state executive officers to swear an oath to support the federal Constitution, but doesn't reciprocally require federal officers to swear an oath to support the states.

Other parts of the text specifically commandeer the states in various ways that cut to the heart of their independent sovereignty. For example, the Constitution requires state legislatures to provide for the election of federal representatives in Congress; it requires state executives to deliver fugitives from justice; it requires states to grant full faith and credit to the laws of other states; and it reserves to the states "the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." The federal Constitution also imposes important restrictions on independent state sovereignty, most notably in Article I, Section 10; the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV; and, of course, the Reconstruction Amendments and other civil-rights amendments (all of which succeeded the 10th Amendment).

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable