we are hearing now States rights, and I have tried to be on that side for some 23 years now. But the attorneys general are here asking us to approve their pact, to pass a Federal law and to have so-called protocols or side agreements that we would wind into the package. So it appears to me that it is no longer a States rights agreement. In Minnesota it may be somewhat different. But now they have come to the Congress and said here is our deal; you approve it and don't ask any questions. Well, back home we call that a mailbox job. You get a job and go out to the mailbox the first of each month and get your check. Am I correct it has reached a higher level than it would be under normal circumstances since we are asked to make the judgment? We are attempting to make the judgment now, and in making that judgment we say we are trampling on States rights. You can't have it both ways. Am I correct?
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a federal law on states' rights.
Share
More from Gerald Ford
Check 21 is pretty simple in what it does. It just modernizes the Nation's check payment system and tries to keep up with all the new technologies in the 21st century.
this debate has boiled down to simply a difference in priorities. I agree with a lot of my colleagues that a tax cut is probably needed; but we followed the advice of the other side of the aisle 2 years ago, and we have heard my…
what happened last night, if the President is watching or the White House is watching, y'all did one heck of a job on my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who has been a champion, a stalwart on behalf of patients and…
I was the sole person who had to make that decision. But, when you look back at the alternatives that I had, it was the right decision. And I have no question that it was the right thing to do then. And I'm more certain today.





