Topic: States' Rights
“It is crucial that all three branches of the federal government respect what Madison called the “double security” to our liberties: the separation of powers among the three branches, and the separation of powers between the federal government and the states.”
Protecting the President from “encroachments by Congress” is the exact opposite of the separate but equal powers/checks and balances enumerated in The Constitution.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“For the sake of American children, Congress should shutter [the Department of Education] and return control of education to the states.”
That’s a radical change. Let’s examine what the results of that would likely be:
Republicans arguing to shut down the DoE isn’t a new thing. Republicans have been against it since the Reagan administration. Newt Gingrich argued for it in 1994. As did Bob Dole in 1996. So how worried should we be that this might actually happen? Hard to say.
Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and an executive editor of Education Next, dismisses talk of shuttering the Department as “hollow chatter.” [Source]
They’re also unclear on what they mean by “abolish the department.” I’ll explain.
- Does it mean completely eliminating all federal education programs and staff? (Difficult to do.)
- Does it mean just handing the programs to other agencies or cabinet departments?
- Does it mean turning all of these programs into block programs for the states? If so, how much federal direction and oversight would there be, and who would be charged with providing it?
- Does it mean cutting funding for Special Education, Title I, or Pell Grants along with it? (A complete elimination means yes.)
“Let’s shut down the head of the snake, the Department of Education,” Vivek Ramaswamy said. “Take that $80 billion, put it in the hands of parents across this country.” [Source]
If you think American parents will see a dime of that money, I have a bridge to sell you. If the money went anywhere at all, it would be to the individual states. That’s assuming they’re not going to force states to shoulder the costs themselves, like they proposed with disaster relief.
From linked article 21:
“On student loans, Butcher says the elimination could lead to the federal government getting “out of the business of awarding student loans, and then for what remains it would be moved to the Department of the Treasury.”
So, there is some evidence that they’re speaking of a total elimination, not a shuttering that preserves some programs. So what would a second Trump administration promise for K-12?
- Title I, the $18 billion federal fund that supports low-income students, would disappear in a decade.
- Federal special education funds would flow to school districts as block grants with no strings attached, or even to savings accounts for parents to use on private school or other education expenses.
- The U.S. Department of Education would be eliminated.
- The federal government’s ability to enforce civil rights laws in schools would be scaled back.
I’m sure there will be more details in the upcoming Department of Education section, so I’ll wait to get into absolute specifics of what they recommend.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare here.
“The Civil Rights Division should spend its first year under the next Administration using the full force of federal prosecutorial resources to investigate and prosecute all state and local governments, institutions of higher education, corporations, and any other private employers who are engaged in discrimination in violation of constitutional and legal requirements.”
This one is insidiously awful. Out of context, he appears to be combating discrimination, which is something we can all get behind. IN context, however, he has argued that DEI and anti-discrimination policies are actually discriminatory to “non-woke” people, and he’s promising to weaponize the DOJ against states who actually have real anti-discrimination laws in place. He does not detail what those prosecutions would look like. His vague language is intentional.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“Enforce the Criminal Prohibitions in 18 U.S. Code §§ 1461 and 1462 Against Providers and Distributors of Abortion Pills That Use the Mail.”
This one is self-explanatory, and would prohibit women from receiving pills for abortion treatment via mail, further isolating women in states which have prohibited abortion.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“Pursue appropriate steps to assist the Department of Homeland Security in obtaining information about criminal aliens in jurisdictions across the United States, particularly those inside “sanctuary” jurisdictions.”
This mischaracterizes what sanctuary cities are. They do not protect undocumented immigrants from criminal prosecution if they commit crimes. They prevent them from being arrested solely for their immigration status if they’re in the process of REPORTING crime. For example, an undocumented woman could report having been raped, without fear of being deported for simply reporting a crime, if her immigration status is her only offense.
This is for safety reasons, and ensures that everyone – regardless of immigration status – can engage with law enforcement safely when necessary. Hamilton’s recommendation here would destroy Sanctuary cities, making them a thing of the past, and make it impossible for undocumented immigrants to report crime for any reason. That’s definitely NOT what you want, and is almost certainly in service to their “round up all illegals and deport them” ethos, which would have devastating humanitarian as well as economic38 consequences.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“ERISA should not be allowed to trump states’ ability to protect innocent human life in the womb. Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.””
ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for pension plans in private industry. [Source]
Berry is arguing here that federal minimum standards don’t matter. If your state wants to ban abortion, your insurance doesn’t have to cover anything to do with it. He’s also couching surrogacy as “anti-life”, which is insane. I don’t know how that thought process even takes place. (Surrogacy is when a baby is voluntarily carried by a woman who isn’t the child’s biological mother, usually done because the biological mother is unable to safely carry a pregnancy to term.) Surrogacy is also sometimes used to enable same-sex male couples to have biological children. I’m guessing that’s the practice that so badly offends Berry. It is NOT, however, “anti-life.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies here.