Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[LaCroix]

because states rely on federal funding in the modern era. withholding all of it to compel a state to do the federal government's bidding violates the spirit of the constitution.

[mongers]

A week certainly is a long time in politics. 

[dps]

because states rely on federal funding in the modern era. withholding all of it to compel a state to do the federal government's bidding violates the spirit of the constitution.

Well, yeah, sure, I'll agree that the Federal government withholding funds in order to force the states to do things the Federal government itself doesn't have the power to do violates the spirit of the Constitution--but the Feds actually do that, and the courts haven't stopped them, and I don't know of any case law that says that there's a limit to the extent to which the Feds can do it.  My point, though, was that the Federal government could simply end all Federal funding going to the states, which I thought you were saying would be unconstitutional.  But on re-reading your post, I see that you were talking about the Feds cutting off funds to a state, not stopping funding to all states.

[jimmy olsen]

What the fuck Brits? Is this actually a thing over there?  How the hell can it be legal?

http://www.newsweek.com/man-who-must-tell-police-24-hours-sex-threatens-hunger-strike-476494?piano_d=1

[CountDeMoney]

because states rely on federal funding in the modern era. withholding all of it to compel a state to do the federal government's bidding violates the spirit of the constitution.

Well, yeah, sure, I'll agree that the Federal government withholding funds in order to force the states to do things the Federal government itself doesn't have the power to do violates the spirit of the Constitution--but the Feds actually do that, and the courts haven't stopped them, and I don't know of any case law that says that there's a limit to the extent to which the Feds can do it.  My point, though, was that the Federal government could simply end all Federal funding going to the states, which I thought you were saying would be unconstitutional.  But on re-reading your post, I see that you were talking about the Feds cutting off funds to a state, not stopping funding to all states.

Does it violate the spirit of the constitution when a state withholds federal funds so it doesn't have to do the federal government's bidding?

[mongers]

I haven't even bother to read the news about Brexit or anything else today, so far; I'd appreciate if the politicians end this limbo and set out the direction 'we' are now heading in.


edit:
Am I the only one who thinks Gove is just a caricature of a Tory slim ball?

It's almost as if he's decided there really are real world lessons to be learned from his viewing of 'Game of Thrones'.

[Sheilbh]

I think Gove is one of the more interesting Tories. Adopted by Labour supporting parents, attended a state school until he won a scholarship to an independent, went on strike as a journalist for several months in the nineties and was rejected from the Conservative research department (where Osborne and Cameron worked for a while) for being 'insufficiently conservative' - though given that Osborne and Cameron were working there I wonder if the real issue was he was insufficiently posh.

He's also wholly unsuitable to be Prime Minister

But then my archetypal Tory slimeball is Osborne

[dps]

because states rely on federal funding in the modern era. withholding all of it to compel a state to do the federal government's bidding violates the spirit of the constitution.

Well, yeah, sure, I'll agree that the Federal government withholding funds in order to force the states to do things the Federal government itself doesn't have the power to do violates the spirit of the Constitution--but the Feds actually do that, and the courts haven't stopped them, and I don't know of any case law that says that there's a limit to the extent to which the Feds can do it.  My point, though, was that the Federal government could simply end all Federal funding going to the states, which I thought you were saying would be unconstitutional.  But on re-reading your post, I see that you were talking about the Feds cutting off funds to a state, not stopping funding to all states.

Does it violate the spirit of the constitution when a state withholds federal funds so it doesn't have to do the federal government's bidding?

Feel free to enlighten me, but I'm not aware of any situation in which a state gives funding to the Federal government, and therefore has an opportunity to withhold funds from the Feds. 

[Tamas]

I think Gove is one of the more interesting Tories. Adopted by Labour supporting parents, attended a state school until he won a scholarship to an independent, went on strike as a journalist for several months in the nineties and was rejected from the Conservative research department (where Osborne and Cameron worked for a while) for being 'insufficiently conservative' - though given that Osborne and Cameron were working there I wonder if the real issue was he was insufficiently posh.

He's also wholly unsuitable to be Prime Minister

But then my archetypal Tory slimeball is Osborne

May be that's why he has decided to backstab Boris and go for the PM seat himself? Doesn't look like a guy you could have as your face in an election, but now he only needs to ride the fear of unelected officials running the country, and become the unelected leader on it.

[Sheilbh]

May be that's why he has decided to backstab Boris and go for the PM seat himself? Doesn't look like a guy you could have as your face in an election, but now he only needs to ride the fear of unelected officials running the country, and become the unelected leader on it.

I think it's reasonable to take Gove at his word when he says that as he watched Boris's leadership bid take shape he realised he wasn't fit to run the country - no assurance, no structures etc. That doesn't sound implausible with Boris.

Also apparently Gove kept in touch with Osborne throughout the campaign and I think this has his fingertips all over it. This feels like revenge for Boris destroying Cameron and Osborne's hopes of succeeding him.

[CountDeMoney]

Feel free to enlighten me, but I'm not aware of any situation in which a state gives funding to the Federal government, and therefore has an opportunity to withhold funds from the Feds.

Plenty of states are withholding Federal funds from its citizens, specifically to not do the Federal government's bidding.   Does that violate the "spirit of the constitution" as well, or is this "spirit" thingy just a one-way street?

[mongers]

I think Gove is one of the more interesting Tories. Adopted by Labour supporting parents, attended a state school until he won a scholarship to an independent, went on strike as a journalist for several months in the nineties and was rejected from the Conservative research department (where Osborne and Cameron worked for a while) for being 'insufficiently conservative' - though given that Osborne and Cameron were working there I wonder if the real issue was he was insufficiently posh.

He's also wholly unsuitable to be Prime Minister

But then my archetypal Tory slimeball is Osborne

Though nothing to stop the Tories have more than arch slimeball. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm having a very difficult time imagining Congress having the ability to opt out of Constitutional restrictions on its own powers just because it says so.

You don't have to imagine it, since it's in the constitution for you to read about link.

Congress has the constitutional power to set the limits of Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction - that doesn't necessarily mean it was intended or appropriate as a mechanism for circumventing particular decisions

Once the Court has spoken on a matter, it has spoken.  The other branches can always in theory elect to ignore the Court.  Stripping jurisdiction after the fact doesn't make that more legitimate though

[Sheilbh]

Tories apparently warning that May has the zeal of a convert and will do things 'no true Brexiteer' would do.

Normandy, you have been warned...

[dps]

Feel free to enlighten me, but I'm not aware of any situation in which a state gives funding to the Federal government, and therefore has an opportunity to withhold funds from the Feds.

Plenty of states are withholding Federal funds from its citizens, specifically to not do the Federal government's bidding.   Does that violate the "spirit of the constitution" as well, or is this "spirit" thingy just a one-way street?

The states don't exist to do the Federal governments bidding, so no.  But again, enlighten me on the states withholding funds.