America's Tyranny of the Cities and States

[Garshasp]

Earlier today the fascist and tyrannical New York City city council passed a law banning cigarette sales to those under 21 [thanks, Dormin111]. No doubt the fascist and tyrannical mayor Mike Bloomberg currently has a wide grin: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/council-oks-raising-smoking-age-18-21-article-1.1502047 

 

Has anyone else observed that while the U.S. Federal Government has a libertarian Bill of Rights and a fairly pro-freedom Constitution it must adhere to, the cities and 50 states of America have virtually no such thing? Although state constitutions are fairly pro-freedom, the overall power of the 50 states and their constituent cities to create fascism and socialism is mostly unlimited. That's why RomneyCare passed easily in Massachusetts while ObamaCare had to jump through many legal hoops to finally get passed. I'm disgusted and terrified to see how tyrannical the cities and states of America are today, both in theory and in practice. The Federal Government, by comparison, is almost a model of gov't restraint and libertarianism.      

Edited November 20, 2013 by Garshasp

[Dormin111]

You mean "Under 21." But yes, this is absolutely horrible.

[Nicky]

Has anyone else observed that while the U.S. Federal Government has a libertarian Bill of Rights and a fairly pro-freedom Constitution it must adhere to

Don't be silly. As far as the Constitution goes, the feds can just as easily ignore it as local authorities do. Remember Prohibition? That wasn't exactly a local project. 

 

It's not the Constitution. Some states and cities lean left, others lean right. The feds are somewhere in the middle. That's all it is.

 

P.S. As far as the few limits in the Bill of Rights that are still actually enforced (like not restricting free speech), those apply to all levels of government, not just the feds. States and cities can't violate the First Amendment either.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Nicky

[Garshasp]

NIcky -- Federal gov't powers, at least in theory, are famously "limited and enumerated". City and state gov't powers are neither.  

[Reidy]

The fourteenth amendment extended the Constitution to apply to lower governments.  Federal courts routinely strike down state and local laws.  The new regulation in New York is a bad one, but I don't think this is the correct diagnosis.  I can't imagine any contemporary court striking down a federal ban on such sales either.

[Nicky]

NIcky -- Federal gov't powers, at least in theory, are famously "limited and enumerated". City and state gov't powers are neither.  

As per the US Constitution as it stands today, there's no difference between the limits on different levels of government. Not in theory, not in practice. The federal judiciary is tasked with ruling on the constitutionality of all government actions, local, state or federal, and they use the same exact Constitution as their standard.

 

If anything, local and state governments tend to have further limits stemming from their state constitutions.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Nicky

[softwareNerd]

It almost seems quaint that the political elites of the early 1900's thought the constitution had to be amended before the Federal government could impose prohibition. Why don't we need a similar amendment for drug-bans, or for a host of other things? 

[Nicky]

It almost seems quaint that the political elites of the early 1900's thought the constitution had to be amended before the Federal government could impose prohibition. Why don't we need a similar amendment for drug-bans, or for a host of other things? 

I had no idea that was a constitutional amendment, not just a law. Thanks for the info, that's really interesting.

[softwareNerd]

I had no idea that was a constitutional amendment, not just a law. Thanks for the info, that's really interesting.

Yes it was. Also, I think some states already had prohibition within the state.  

According to the Wikipedia, it seems that the loose (and faulty) interpretation of the commerce clause made such amendments unnecessary.

 In Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), the Court struck a federal law which prohibited the manufacture of liquor for shipment across state lines. 

 

During the New Deal the commerce clause was interpreted to allow the Federal government to pretty much regulate any commerce.

Aside: FDR should take the blame, because his threats to pack the SCOTUS are seen as the reason they bent to his will on the subject. U.S.'s worst-ever president lives on.