If the power to tax is the power to destroy, then what of the power to withhold federal funding for education or highways from the states from which the monies were originally extracted?

"The power to tax is the power to destroy," wrote John Marshall in his opinion in the decision of McCulloch v. Maryland, about 19 decades ago.  It is curious that John Marshall, previously a member of the convention in Virginia empowered to ratify the Constitution, did not align with Patrick Henry and George Mason and others of the "anti-federalist" position when they earlier cautioned of the same danger and made the same observation.  The "anti-federalists" raised the objection to the ratification of the Constitution, noting that if the federal government was allowed to levy taxes within the states, the result would be the inevitable domination of the federal government over the states.  The federal government would eventually possess the power to destroy the sovereignty of each state.

Such wisdom is rare.

Enter the federal income tax.  Not even the anti-federalists saw this coming, for it undoes all the safeguards and balances between the states and the federal government.  Money is extracted from the people of all the states, and the people then are required to elect (hire) "representatives" to go to Washington, D.C. and beg for the money to return, in some reduced amount, to the state from which it was originally extracted.

Let me point out at this point that the federal government does not make money; it either  extracts or prints.  The "money" isn't the federal government's, though they think it is.

But how does the money paid in eventually return toward the source, and by whose discretion?  There are bridge projects and super digs (Boston) and the like, but there is also funding for the staples of the states, such as road maintenance and education.  The states have been placed in a condition in which they now must rely on certain federal funding (return of taxes) to themselves to fund these functions.  Here is where the game is played.

Unfortunately, we know the game all too well, and this piece is not an explanation of that game.  The lobbyists and the closed loop economy between New York City and Washington, D.C. are there for anyone who chooses to look.  But the way this nefarious coercion is being applied in today's political environment is remarkable and breaking new trail.

North Carolina, as is its right, has decided that designated bathrooms in the state are for those born to a designated sex.  This is how it has been for hundreds of years, and that is how they want it.  There is no discrimination; there is only the necessary and civilized reality.  Seems reasonable and benign, and it is.  Ponder how well it operated for all those years.

Here is the list of "sanctuary cities" in the United States.  They refuse to comply with federal immigration law.  They each, directly or indirectly, receive federal monies.  To be fair, the money in question is money partially extracted via taxation from them and is then returned to them in funding.  This occurs even though they violate federal immigration law.

It is understood by all parties, and with little objection, that laws have been passed (Title IX) that make it clear that people cannot lose opportunity or be discriminated against due to their sex – legislation legally presented and passed by the proper authorities.  Yet critical language has been altered outside the legislative process, by certain powers approved by this administration, that now changes "due to sex" to "due to sexual orientation."  This now demands that "choice" prevails over physical realities or birth certificates – one more avoidance of the constitutional legislative arrangement.

The question at hand is this.  If the federal government demanded adherence to law and legal behavior, and if it was to use the heavy-handed withholding of federal funding, which entities would be deprived in order to force compliance to law?  Those states obeying and maintaining law, or those cities openly violating law?

North Carolina, acting within its sovereignty and wishing to maintain the arrangement it has rightfully and legally enforced for decades, is being threatened with the non-return of money to its state by the federal government.  Federal funding for education is being withheld from North Carolina.  Federal funding continues for "sanctuary cities."

If there ever was a time for the governors of the states to align themselves against the coercion of the federal government, it is now.  It should be unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold monies extracted from the population of these states in order to coerce a state or states to the whims of an administration.