GOP platform proposes Tenth Amendment test for all federal spending

[markomalley]

This is not directly “Republican Convention” related – and since the 'Republican Convention" thread is over 1,100 posts (and is likely to be locked soon), I decided this is worth it’s own thread.

[Robert, as a thought, you might want to create “Republican Platform” and “Democratic Platform” threads as part of your consolidation efforts]

From The Hill:

All federal spending should be reviewed to ensure powers reserved for the states are not given to the federal government, according to the GOP platform approved Tuesday.

The platform language is meant to ensure all federal spending meets the requirements of the 10th amendment, which prohibits state powers from being given to the feds.

“We support the review and examination of all federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending, operational inefficiencies, or abuse of power to determine whether they are performing functions that are better performed by the States,” the platform reads. “These functions, as appropriate, should be returned to the States in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The Tenth Amendment has taken on new importance among Republicans who are looking to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, as it potentially provides a justification for devolving some federal powers down to the states. The amendment reads: “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.”
What a concept: actually limiting the size and scope of the federal government to what is called for in the Constitution. Wow. Radical.

 

[DaveBj]

I’m fer it!

 

[sedonaman]

What???!!! No more federal funding for free sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot fetish in Florida ???!!!

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

[/INDENT]What a concept: actually limiting the size and scope of the federal government to what is called for in the Constitution. Wow. Radical.

Seems to me that what they are actually calling for is a no-strings-attached run on Federal funding. There is no 10th Amendment violation in setting terms to the acceptance of Federal grants and subsidies.

 

[Dale_M]

I am not sure that US party platforms actually affect what happens in Congress. The old saying that “platforms are to run on, not to stand on” seems to have been true in recent decades.

But platforms do provide a gauge of a political party. The Washington Post recently had an article around the changes in the GOP platform

The word “abortion” does not appear in a Republican Party platform until 1976, when the party concedes that it is deeply split between those who support “abortion on demand” and those who seek to protect the lives of the unborn.

The quest for lower taxes does not define Republicanism until the 1980s, and matters of faith play almost no role in the GOP’s plank until the 1990s.

Influenced by the rise of tea party activists, this year’s platform, adopted Tuesday at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, has shifted to the right, particularly on fiscal issues. It calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve and a commission to study returning to the gold standard. There are odes of fidelity to the Constitution but also calls for amendments that would balance the federal budget, require a two-thirds majority in Congress to raise taxes and define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The new plank urges the transformation of Medicare from an entitlement to a system of personal accounts, increased use of coal for energy and a ban on federal funding to universities that give illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates.

washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-platform-through-the-years-shows-partys-shift-from-moderate-to-conservative/2012/08/28/09094512-ed70-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a_story.html

The article quotes Speaker of the House John Boehner as saying a platform should be no more than a page long so average voters can read it. He expressed skepticism for the laundry lists which US party platforms have bloated into.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

This is not directly “Republican Convention” related – and since the 'Republican Convention" thread is over 1,100 posts (and is likely to be locked soon), I decided this is worth it’s own thread.

[Robert, as a thought, you might want to create “Republican Platform” and “Democratic Platform” threads as part of your consolidation efforts]

From The Hill:

All federal spending should be reviewed to ensure powers reserved for the states are not given to the federal government, according to the GOP platform approved Tuesday.

The platform language is meant to ensure all federal spending meets the requirements of the 10th amendment, which prohibits state powers from being given to the feds.

“We support the review and examination of all federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending, operational inefficiencies, or abuse of power to determine whether they are performing functions that are better performed by the States,” the platform reads. “These functions, as appropriate, should be returned to the States in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The Tenth Amendment has taken on new importance among Republicans who are looking to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, as it potentially provides a justification for devolving some federal powers down to the states. The amendment reads: “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.”
What a concept: actually limiting the size and scope of the federal government to what is called for in the Constitution. Wow. Radical.

We can do this.

Democrats will HATE it though. Just watch in the following posts.

 

[sedonaman]

Seems to me that what they are actually calling for is a no-strings-attached run on Federal funding. There is no 10th Amendment violation in setting terms to the acceptance of Federal grants and subsidies.

That would depend on what the purpose of the funding was. If, for example, the Dept. of Defense wanted to expand a harbor for the Navy, it could provide the funds to the local government to dredge it out, and there would be no conflict, since defense is a defined national function. On the other hand, where is the justification for federal funding for counting dogs in Oxnard? [An actual case.] Then we can also ask why should people in Mississippi, a poor state, pay for welfare programs in Connecticut, a wealthy state? A better case [although not much better] can be made for not taxing MS for welfare at all but taxing CT [et al] to help MS.

The whole idea of having local governments is they are closer to local problems than Washington and can best decide what needs to be done.

The other question is, why should there be any strings attached to your own money? Washington does get it from local taxpayers.

 

[Trader]

We can do this.

Democrats will HATE it though. Just watch in the following posts.

The 10th amendment has to be the most ignored part of the constitution. It has not been repealed or even argued against, just ignored.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I’d like to see that happen. Subsidiarity at work.