Which has nothing to do with the post I responded to so go peddle that crap somewhere else.
Sure it did. You were trying to assert that a double standard wasnāt being implemented and I showed that there was
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the federal government from putting restrictions on any moneys it distributes to the states.
There wasnāt anything unconstitutional in Reagan stating that if states wanted highway funds, they had to raise the drinking age.
Well- Iād have to go back and remember if it was in the appropriations language. If it wasnāt, then there might have been a constitutional problem.
If true, that is awesome. Stacking that supreme court wonāt mean ā ā ā ā if we tie all funding to agenda issues.
Maybe it will initiate a new wave of true federalism in reaction.
The way to truly limit the federal governmentās reach is to have a serious discussion as to what they should and should not be involved in.
Personally, I donāt think taxes should be used to try out someoneās pet beliefs in what stimulates the economy. They should be to raise revenues for services/things the federal government is best positioned, by Constitution and by scale, to provide.
THAT is how you manage the size of government in a logical way.
I asserted no Damm thing. I asserted people on this board could not be hypocrites for something when this board was not around. You make a valid argument with Californiaās if you would have used that earlier I would not have responded. There are double standards all over this board but using something that didnāt happen is not one.
Which is why I responded with an example that was only 1 year old
From South Dakota v Dole- the five standards SCOTUS used in that case to judge whether conditions to federal funds are constitutional:
- The spending must promote āthe general welfare.ā
- The condition must be unambiguous.
- The condition should relate āto the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.ā
- The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.
- The condition must not be coercive.
I think for sure points 1-3 apply to the conditions Congress set on the relief aid.
The OPer tried to make a case for Point 4, but again, the wording of the aid is NOT that states CANNOT lower their taxes. That would indeed be unconstitutional.
The wording instead indicates that the relief aid cannot be used to OFFSET REVENUES LOST from a state tax cut. It does not say that a state CANNOT offer a tax cut.
There is nothing wrong with thatā¦thatās simply the feds stating āthis money is for revenues lost because of COVID, and this aloneā.
Some might debate whether this is coercive. SCOTUS made it clear that coercion was irresistable pressure, and that applying SOME pressure is fine.
I donāt see how anyone can say this is a coercive act on the part of Congress. If a state can afford a tax cut, thatās a clear signal it doesnāt need the federal funding being offered.
Now- does the OPer or anyone else who thinks this move by Congress was āunconstitutionalā care to rebut?
Source link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
I love the smell of lib deflection in the morning!
1 Like
Iāll take this as you have no rebuttalā¦thanks for playing.
He did no such thing. He proposed a budget to the Council. The Council voted 32-8 to raise taxes.
How many of the 32 do you think were Republicans?
And from the articles that I have read, the majority of folks there do not mind the increase because the bulk of it will go to school districts and a big increase for the police budget.
Okay . . . Iāll bite . . . how did you property tax go up 25%? Or is it that you couldnāt deduct as much off your income taxers?
Reassessment of value. The county did it the way they usually do every two years and came up with a 7% increase, the state made them do it differently and they then came up with 25%. Since I was a realtor at one time, I checked the comps and it is not warranted.
What state/county is this?
If its a āredā state, how did democrats pull this off?
Ohio, the Republicans did it, but why did they? Because democrats tied federal money given to states to the unemployment rate. Costing my state a lot of money.
And this all happened since Jan 20th?
Hah! Another deflection!
Smells just as good in the afternoon.
1 Like
Itās like the SALT and trump.
You live in the wrong state.
Move to a better state.
Allan
1 Like
On the contrary, I made an argument and invited a rebuttal. So go for it.
Which money did they tie to unemployment rate?
What was the purpose of said federal money?
