didn’t the House Leadership propose in their new updated contract that they would be required to cite the area in the Constitution that allowed them to write and pass any legislation? Has that in fact happened, or is it yet another shallow promise they never intended to uphold?

It’s amazing how quickly the newbies, pushed and voted for because of their lower taxes, less government positions, seemed to have drunk form the goblet of Washington power, and have folded to the aisle crossing wishes of Boehner and Cantor, just so they are not called obstructionists.

and the reckless trampling all over States’ rights will lead to such a repugnant reaction from the people that the concept of state nullification will become wildly popular and recognized as the only just recourse to repel the bully our federal government has become.

Waiting around for the courts to protect us simply is not the answer as we continue to lose ground–too many times with the courts consent.

The only way he would “get it” is if he went on a full-speed campaign against federal judicial intervention in state affairs. This is the number one reason federalism will likely never again be a workable philosophy. The citizens and politicians in this nation have permitted the courts to usurp states’ rights and eliminate the ability for state governments to set their own policies and laws where the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly apply.

This is where Newt Gingrich is dead on target – it’s time to dramatically roll back the powers of the judicial branch and reign them in to a constitutionally appropriate level. Until that happens, federalism is just a pretty word with absolutely no meaning or applicability.

“That’s why I have stressed the importance of electing state legislators and governors with the courage and fortitude required to seize back their usurped power and to defy the unconstitutional legislation and judicial rulings from the federal government.”

Look no further, you have found your heart’s desire. His name is Rick Perry, and with the increased number of CONSERVATIVE Republicans elected to the Texas legislature with the help of a CONSERVATIVE governor in Rick Perry, he, and our legislature, along with a brilliant state Attorney General, have taken on the federal government more than any other state in the nation.

Of course, there has been blowback from the Obama administration. When we decided that no state/federal funds could go to those agencies that performed abortions, we got sued. When we decided that we wanted to keep the Ten Commandments on our Capital lawn, we got sued. When we felt that we, as a state, could best determine our drilling interests we got sued. When we, according to Texas law, had our legislators draw the new district lines to represent the increase in our population, we got sued.

One man, Rick Perry, has consistantly stood up against the D.C. leviathan. And if you can show me another governor who has such a record, name them.

..one of Gordian Knot proportion.

You are correct in that much of the problem is in federal mandates. If the federal government mandates something (Medicaid for example) then they ought to help pay for it.

I wouldn’t consider this a case of the state using federal tax dollars to pay for state needs though. That is something altogether different. Like CA using federal funds to pay teacher salaries.

I would have to dig into it a little deeper but I believe most federal mandates have an opt out provision. That is, the state doesn’t have to participate but if they don’t, they forfeit federal funds, and most importantly the state’s taxpayers still have to pay for the program via federal taxation.

So if Texas for example wanted to opt out of Medicaid and manage a program on its own, Texas taxpayers wouldn’t get a break on their federal taxes. So this is often seen as a case of the state getting “its” money back.

Extricating a state from this situation I think requires a two pronged approach. Implement something like the Federal Funds Act (in my newest post) and at the same time opt out of federal mandates.

The FFA would prevent the tax dollars from going to the federal government and would instead allow them to be kept in the state for the state to implement their own replacement programs if they so chose.

In a right-side-up world we would pay more in state taxes and less in federal taxes and then the states wouldn’t have to depend on DC sending money back to the states. It would have never left in the first place.

At the moment states are limited in how high they can raise their income or sales taxes to be more self-supporting because they’ve been crowded out by the confiscatory level of federal taxation.

Although I think I pay too much in taxes I’d prefer to pay more to my home state and less to the federal government.

Any transition back to federalism will be long and painful but I think it is the only way to get the federal government back under control.