There are actual examples of states refusing to be cowed into submission by federal dollars. Was it Wyoming (or one of the other rocky mountain states) that refused to implement the federally mandated 55mph speed limit for years, agreeing to forgoe the federal highway transportation funds? And currently, several states, Texas included, have speed zones that are 5-10 mph higher than the federally mandated 75mph limit: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_li ... ted_States.Vol Texan wrote:As a parallel example, the federal government has no right to dictate how we drive, but by withholding tax dollars (or threatening to do so), they have been able to institute a national seat belt law. Nowhere in the law does it say it is a federal crime not to buckle up, but make no mistake, they have used the power of the purse to force their will on the states - and the states have never once fought back. What makes us think that it would be different if they did the same with our police?
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Federalizations of law enforcement”
- Wed May 20, 2015 1:13 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Federalizations of law enforcement
- Replies: 15
- Views: 1702
Re: Federalizations of law enforcement
- Tue May 19, 2015 8:30 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Federalizations of law enforcement
- Replies: 15
- Views: 1702
Re: Federalizations of law enforcement
I think it would require a Constitutional amendment. It would otherwise be a clear violation of the 10th Amendment and would not survive a SCOTUS challenge.
10th Amendment:
"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."
There is no wiggle room there. The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to federalize local police. Nor does it prohibit the states from having local police. Therefore, the power of policing at the state level is reserved to the states respectively, and locally to The People.
Since the power of the federal government to federalize all state and local police nationally does not exist in the Constitution, the only possible exception I can think of would be under a national declaration of martial law. And absent a compelling national emergency of some sort, that's not going to happen. Even if it did, it could only be a temporary measure.
So for this to happen, it would have to be by means of some kind of a coup, and I just don't think they could pull that off.
10th Amendment:
"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."
There is no wiggle room there. The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to federalize local police. Nor does it prohibit the states from having local police. Therefore, the power of policing at the state level is reserved to the states respectively, and locally to The People.
Since the power of the federal government to federalize all state and local police nationally does not exist in the Constitution, the only possible exception I can think of would be under a national declaration of martial law. And absent a compelling national emergency of some sort, that's not going to happen. Even if it did, it could only be a temporary measure.
So for this to happen, it would have to be by means of some kind of a coup, and I just don't think they could pull that off.