happy consititution day

[lasersailor184]

will somebody pleeeease show me where in the constitution it states that the federal government can withhold money conditionally?

Simple really.  Point to any place in the constitution that says the Feds have to give the states money, and I'll put "JB88 is amazing in bed" in my signature.

[JB88]

i already know that i am good in bed...no need to advertise.

[lasersailor184]

No need to dodge the question either.


Answer it.

[JB88]

you first.  i insist.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by JB88
will somebody pleeeease show me where in the constitution it states that the federal government can withhold money conditionally?

Read Section 8 of Article 1, already quoted in part in this thread.

When I buy a car, I pay the bill on the condition that I get a car.

When congress passes a bill to ...say... build a highway accross Arkansas, it conditionally allocates funding to that project.  It's called purchasing.  It's written in the bill, that congress is empowered by the constituion to write and pass.  

If they cannot withold funding conditionally, they could not withold for non-performance.  The governor takes the school funding and buys a new fleet of Ferraris? Lockheed takes the money for 100 F-22s then doesn't deliver?

Under your argument, the feds could not do anything about it, because there would be no conditions on the money.

If you think the budget system is out of control now, wait till we follow your advice.

[JB88]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

If you think the budget system is out of control now, wait till we follow your advice.

i have offered no advice that i know of, and i have already stated clearly that i am not actually "opposed" to it.  i am fine with it in many, if not most cases.  

i understand your point.   and i have since the first time that you made it.  i hope that you will appreciate what i mean when when i state again that, while i am not neccessarilly opposed to how the government operates, i have yet to see where it has been granted the power to force a state to teach a specific item without the threat of removing funding, especially given that the states are meant to assume all other powers that have not been clearly defined as the specific function of the federal branch.

i can see no language within the document which suggests that any funding in the realm of article 8 should be applied with such a broad brush that would require a state to comply with matters unrelated in order to recieve constitutionally guaranteed funds.

this is certainly not the first time that this argument has been made and it wont be the last...perhaps even by some people smarter than me.  (which doesnt take much...)

again, correct me if i am wrong.  i am happy to relent, but you will need to show me where it says that i can withhold that money from the states for any non compliance with it's agenda.

that's all that i am saying.  

right or wrong is not relevant to the argument that i have put forth.

what is actually written in the document is.

------------

note:  i am all for a constitutional convention where we could fix lots of things that people take for granted as constitutional gospel but are not actually there.

-----------

88