DGS49
Diamond Member
Imagine a small group of contiguous countries in Africa, each struggling with problems because of its small size and threatened from outside forces.
They a convene a meeting of their leaders and come up with an idea to connect their countries for their common benefit. Each will remain an independent country, but for the functions and purposes for which consolidation seems most efficient or appropriate, they consolidate. They draw up a Charter including a list of functions that are most logical to be consolidated: postal service and interconnecting roads, a consolidated army and navy, a consolidated patent and copyright function, a unified currency, and so on. Then they figure out how the consolidated government should be structured, and provide a tax structure that is sufficient to support it, but not sufficient to allow it to get too big. For example, the consolidated government will not be allowed to collect INCOME TAXES on companies or the population at large. To make sure there is no question about the limited scope of this umbrella government (the original countries remaining of most importance), they explicitly state in the Charter that the consolidated government has only the specific powers set forth for the consolidated government in the Charter; everything else remains for the individual countries to control.
Of course the Charter they come up with is, basically, the U.S. Constitution. For the list of centralized functions, see Article I, Section 8. For the explicit limitation of the powers of the central government, see the Tenth Amendment.
Many Americans are confused by the term "States," and in their unsophisticated minds they think that a "state" is a part of a "country," but that is not the case now, nor has it ever been. The words, "State" and "Country" mean the same thing. Note the talk about a "Two-State solution" in Palestine. Two "states" = two countries.
There are many people on the Political Left in this country who know what the Constitution says and what it means, but simply don't like it. They think the Federal government should be able to do anything that Congress thinks [or rather, the Democrats in Congress think) is a good idea.
They play on the ignorance of the Public regarding the Constitution, and when questions of the constitutionality of, say, The Affordable Care Act, come up, they point to wording in the Preamble and in Article I about promoting the "general welfare," and claim that these words give Congress carte blanche to do anything they want to do - States be damned.
But people who have actually studied the history of Con Law know that the USSC has repeatedly rejected this reasoning, noting that if the Founders had wanted Congress to have the power to do anything they wanted for the General Welfare, they would not have listed 17 specific powers, and stipulated that the powers not granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution were reserved to the States and the People.
This is not difficult, but when you combine the millions who just don't like what the Constitution says with the millions who don't know what the Constitution says, we have a pretty large subversive group. And then you combined those people with their Fellow Travelers in the MSM, we have a situation where anyone who tries to constrain the Federal Government to its Constitutional powers is characterized as a radical, right-wing nut job.
Perverse, isn't it?
They a convene a meeting of their leaders and come up with an idea to connect their countries for their common benefit. Each will remain an independent country, but for the functions and purposes for which consolidation seems most efficient or appropriate, they consolidate. They draw up a Charter including a list of functions that are most logical to be consolidated: postal service and interconnecting roads, a consolidated army and navy, a consolidated patent and copyright function, a unified currency, and so on. Then they figure out how the consolidated government should be structured, and provide a tax structure that is sufficient to support it, but not sufficient to allow it to get too big. For example, the consolidated government will not be allowed to collect INCOME TAXES on companies or the population at large. To make sure there is no question about the limited scope of this umbrella government (the original countries remaining of most importance), they explicitly state in the Charter that the consolidated government has only the specific powers set forth for the consolidated government in the Charter; everything else remains for the individual countries to control.
Of course the Charter they come up with is, basically, the U.S. Constitution. For the list of centralized functions, see Article I, Section 8. For the explicit limitation of the powers of the central government, see the Tenth Amendment.
Many Americans are confused by the term "States," and in their unsophisticated minds they think that a "state" is a part of a "country," but that is not the case now, nor has it ever been. The words, "State" and "Country" mean the same thing. Note the talk about a "Two-State solution" in Palestine. Two "states" = two countries.
There are many people on the Political Left in this country who know what the Constitution says and what it means, but simply don't like it. They think the Federal government should be able to do anything that Congress thinks [or rather, the Democrats in Congress think) is a good idea.
They play on the ignorance of the Public regarding the Constitution, and when questions of the constitutionality of, say, The Affordable Care Act, come up, they point to wording in the Preamble and in Article I about promoting the "general welfare," and claim that these words give Congress carte blanche to do anything they want to do - States be damned.
But people who have actually studied the history of Con Law know that the USSC has repeatedly rejected this reasoning, noting that if the Founders had wanted Congress to have the power to do anything they wanted for the General Welfare, they would not have listed 17 specific powers, and stipulated that the powers not granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution were reserved to the States and the People.
This is not difficult, but when you combine the millions who just don't like what the Constitution says with the millions who don't know what the Constitution says, we have a pretty large subversive group. And then you combined those people with their Fellow Travelers in the MSM, we have a situation where anyone who tries to constrain the Federal Government to its Constitutional powers is characterized as a radical, right-wing nut job.
Perverse, isn't it?