Tag: government overreach

Waco ISD Superintendent Charged with Marijuana Possession

Sanders Jett-Folk | @sjettfolk

The Superintendent of the Waco Independent School District (WISD) in Waco, Texas was arrested Wednesday night on a misdemeanor marijuana charge. Marcus Nelson, the district’s Superintendent, was driving north on U.S. 190 Wednesday evening when he got pulled over by a trooper from the Department of Public Safety. The trooper was working a routine patrol when he observed that Nelson’s 2007 GMC Yukon was in the left lane and not passing.

Continue reading “Waco ISD Superintendent Charged with Marijuana Possession”

Advertisements

Who Said the Federal Government Could Legislate Morality?

Jack Shields | @Jack_Shields20

This week the Senate failed to pass Ben Sasse’s (R-NE) bill which prohibited infanticide and mandated that babies born after a botched abortion receive proper medical care. When this happened, I found myself in a weird position. Though I disagree with the reasoning the Democrats had to vote no, and I am extremely pro-life, I would have voted no too. This is because although I believe it is a great moral issue that must be solved, it is not a federal issue. It is a state issue, and we would be wise to remember that just because it is morally good, does not mean it should that all levels of government should do it.

Continue reading “Who Said the Federal Government Could Legislate Morality?”

Government Overreach Increases Regardless of Party

Nickolas Roberson | United States

As of now, the Democrats control the House, while the Republicans control the Senate. With both parties in power, political gridlock will only increase. However, the legislation these parties do pass will only increase the already gluttonous influence and power of the United States government. Clearly, this increased government overreach is detrimental to citizens.

For over a hundred years, the government has been willing to violate our natural rights and liberties. For example, we have lawmakers limiting our 2nd Amendment rights with the bump stock ban and warrantless surveillance of citizens. With established political gridlock growing, these infringements will only increase in frequency.

Bipartisan Compromise

Why? In order for the established political parties to gain “true progress”, they must come to agreements and compromises and create bipartisan deals that work for both sides of the aisle. With their vastly varying beliefs, these parties will need to find common ground. After all, without this, nothing would get done in Washington. 

To the average citizen, this may sound like a good thing. Yes, the wheels of politics are able to move once again. However, they are by no means moving in a positive direction; they are instead furthering government overreach. Both parties want to ensure that they get what they want, no matter the monetary cost.

A Vehicle for Government Overreach

For example, after having control of the House for just two months, members of the Democratic party have already proposed a bill to eliminate the Electoral College. Additionally, Democrats proposed a bill that would criminalize the private sale of firearms, a clear violation of our 2nd Amendment right. Due to a Republican-controlled Senate, these bills will most likely not pass.

However, if they propose similar bills that contain legislation pertaining to both parties’ agendas, government overreach will continue. For instance, a bill may set aside tax dollars to fund the border wall, but also provide taxpayer-funded healthcare to American citizens. Both parties fulfill their wants in this situation, pushing them to fulfill more extreme legislature that fits in their agendas. Thus, an ever-growing spiral of increasing government overreach and power will form. Our rights are at risk; compromise is not always beneficial.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

How to End the Loophole Surrounding Federalism

By Jack Shields | United States

The drinking age in most states in the United States is twenty-one. This fact is a great disappointment to me having turned eighteen this year. But the fact the age is twenty-one rather than eighteen isn’t even the most disappointing part. It’s the reason why the drinking age is twenty-one. Most states have this as their drinking age because they were coerced into doing so by the federal government using a technique that was held as constitutional in the case South Dakota v. Dole. The decision handed the federal government a mechanism by which they may go around the very idea of federalism and force the states to submit to their will, and must be overturned.

The Effects of Prohibition

In 1919, we as a nation decided that legislating morality was a good idea, and ratified the Eighteenth amendment prohibiting the sale of alcohol at a federal level. Unsurprisingly, Americans did not respond well to being told what to do, and the disaster that was prohibition was finally ended with the ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933. Section Two of the Twenty-First amendment clearly stated that states had a right to regulate alcohol if they so choose, but the federal government no longer had a say in the matter. Yet, when has a constitutional provision ever been enough to stop our federal government from expanding their scope of power and informing us ignorant, ordinary people what is moral and right to do?

Congress passed a law in 1984 which required the Secretary of Transportation to withhold five percent of federal highway funds for states that did not adopt a drinking age of twenty-one. This was challenged by South Dakota, which at the time had a drinking age of nineteen. The Supreme Court ruled that this law did not violate the spending powers of Congress or the Twenty-First Amendment. Their logic for this was because the law was for the general welfare of the nation, and the way Congress went about achieving this was reasonable, then the law was within Congress’s constitutional bounds even if they were indirectly trying to achieve a goal not within the purview of Congress or the federal government in general.

The Abandonment of Federalism

This logic has now been widely accepted. In my Government class, we had to create our own bills and have our own Congress as an assignment in order to learn how Congress worked. Our teacher informed us that we didn’t have to worry at all about the fact the federal government has very few enumerated powers. We could make our bills about any subject as long as, instead of just creating the policy at the federal level, our bill listed what we wanted and what we would be willing to take away from the states if they didn’t comply. This is not federalism. This is the system my parents had for me when I was little, where if I didn’t obey them then Santa would not be coming that year.

The federal government and the states should not have a parent-child relationship. The way it was supposed to go was the federal government would have a small list of enumerated powers in which their laws would be the Supreme Law of the Land. These were policies that needed to be uniform throughout the states in order to have one country such as a single currency and regulating trade with foreign nations. But other than that, everything was left up to the states. The states were their own independent government, and with powers not enumerated to the federal government, the states’ law was the Supreme Law. That is the very idea of federalism and of limited government, and sadly we do not have that right now because of this decision.

If the federal government is supposed to have limited, enumerated powers, and nothing more, then indirectly forcing the states to do something not within the scope of their power is clearly a loophole that needs to be shut. But how? The federal government currently gives funding to the states for many things. And both the states and federal government feel the need to legislate morality on many issues like alcohol, marijuana, and many others. Whether either of these things is good is an issue for another time. It’s how things are and a fix to this problem needs to fit into that reality. So the federal government is giving funds to the states and giving money inherently grants the authority to withhold money. What should justify withholding said money?

The Solution

It should all be based upon the federal government’s enumerated powers. This is the most logical conclusion, which is clearly seen when looking at this type of situation with any other entity. If you have a phone, you have a deal with a phone company wherein they provide you with a data plan and you pay them for it. If you disobey their terms and conditions pertaining to the purchase of the data plan, it is completely reasonable for the company to cease to provide you with those things. But if you didn’t pay your rent that month, it would not be an appropriate justification for the phone company to cease to provide their services because that has nothing to do with the relationship between you and the phone company. The relationship between the federal government and state governments should be the same way.

From 1919 to 1933, it would have been appropriate for the federal government to withhold funds for disobeying their will pertaining to alcohol. Regulating it was an enumerated power and their law is the Supreme Law. But it is not an enumerated power anymore, and therefore they have no place in regulating it. Funds should only be withheld in cases wherein that pertain to an enumerated power. If the federal government wants to withhold funds because states are disobeying immigration laws, they can. Because that’s a federal power. But if the federal government wants to withhold funds because a state doesn’t pay teachers enough, that would not be allowed as that is not an enumerated power of the federal government and is therefore outside the natural bounds of the relationship between the federal and state governments.

If we are to have a system of federalism and not a system of a parent like authority dictating to their children what is okay and what isn’t we must close all loopholes by which the federal government may overstep both directly and indirectly, their natural, enumerated powers. In order to do this, it is clear South Dakota v. Dole must be overturned and replaced with a standard by which federal funds may only be withheld in cases wherein the federal government wishes to directly influence a state’s behavior pertaining to an enumerated power of the federal government.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source