Where Had DeCentralized Government Actually Worked?

[IndependntLogic]

So basically you just want somebody to come in here and try to defend tribal societies in Africa, because there are no case studies when the trend of the 20th and 21st-centuries has been a rush to the super-state.

Ah, the predictible. When you ass is owned on a topic or issue, project something onto the other debater.

No. Let me dumb this down. Where has less government worked in the last 40 years - or is working now? There are dozens of countries in existence now with almost no corporate regualtion etc... which ones exemplify what you want for America?
Hell, I even gave you a free example with the Ukraine! If you want, you can start with why you would like us to be like them...

"Less government" Interesting you used that term.
There is good government and bad government.
What we conservatives refer to as "less government" is "less intrusive and expensive".
Honest people and good business people want ot be left alone. We do not want overbearing and expensive government. You do know to what I refer. We object to overstuffed, over staffed bureaucratic government.
Regulation is good. It works. It keeps people and business honest. What we don't need is a government that sometimes arbitrarily enforces rules on one while ignoring another.
For example.....Should the federal government have the right to shut down an entire food processing plant because an employee got the ear of some local bureaucrat in the Dept of Agriculture office who then sent an inspector to the plant and happened to see a couple of workers not wearing the government mandated safety gloves, but gloves that were more comfortable and worked better than the OSHA standard gloves? Is this the kind of government you believe to be the best way to go? One size fits all? No common sense?
IS it your assertion that the EPA can stop an entire project well under way because some enviro wacko discovered a rare Mussel living in a creek that is less than 4 feet wide that the government just happened to label as "threatened"....Never mind the fact that this particular creature is known to exist in hundreds of creeks in the same area?
Is this ok with you?

Fist let's start with your assumptions. You do not know what being a good parent is. Is it rather presumptuous for me to say that? Of course. You say that I don't know what it is to want a less intrusive government? I own a business. I know all about intrusive government. So tell you what. I won't assume you don't things until you tell me so. There is in fact much I didn't know until coming here. Like how reasonable many Tea Partiers, Libertarians etc... are, for example. Obviously that doesn't mean I agree with them on everything. Like this issue.

So to address your point. I've lived in over a dozen countries and traveled to many more. Two things you can always count on people complaining about are taxes and government. About the only exceptions I can think of are are Switzerland and people from Scandinavia always seem pretty happy with their governments.
Other than that? No one. The complaints almost always fall into one of three categories:

My government is corrupt!

or

My government is too intrusive!

or

Both of the above.

Now our govenment is far from corruption free but compared to say Columbia, Slovakia or Russia? Phew! Glad we have what we have! However, unlike Ron Paul, I would love to see PACs and Lobbyists have to disclose very penny passed anywhere. And yes of course, it sure could use some improving.
As far as intrusive. I own a business and sometimes government regs are a real pain in the buttocks. But I don't know. I hire who I want to hire, have moved my company a couple times, fire people when they deserve to be fired, do business with whomever I want, wherever I want, all over the world etc...
I've never walked a city street and had a cop ask me for my papers here (I'm not Hispanic) but that's definitely happened overseas. No big deal, you just give them a photo copy of your passport and the equivalent of a few American dollars and then go about your way. But here, unless you're a Hispanic in AZ, the government generally doesn't intrude.
I go on the internet and say "Obama sucks!" on a regualr basis. No one has shown up at my door. Even more importantly, I am just finishing a novel (on page 500 - down to the wire - Phew!) and have researched Amonium Nitrate Fuel Oil preparation, Nuclear power plant security and vulnerabilities, HEU sources and other things that I'm SURE the Fed has peeked at. Still no one at the door. No intrusion.
So where is all this intrustion? Why do you feel so oppressed? I don't. I'm happy here!

Just my two cents...

 

[Wacky Quacky]

So let's see. A decentralized government is the panacea to all woes and yet, according to its proponents, not one nation of people anywhere in the world seems to want one or effectively use one? Curious. Fine. Let's make it easier for.you guys. Which country with little or no federal regulations on corporations is what you want for America? I remember when I lived in Mexico, this was literally no enforcement of environmental regs and corps were left to "regulate themselves" - until so much toxic waste made its way up the Pacific Coast that Bush Sr. threw down the gauntlet. Then they started enforcing those darn Fed Regs in the north, anyway. So you want that for us? If not, which country would be a good example for your cause?

Your argument doesn't seem to be about de-centralized government, but about corporate regulations. I'm all for reasonable regulations in order to keep corporations in check. What I don't support are regulations designed to put a businesses' competitors out of business, or designed to make Al Gore richer beyond anyone's dreams, and the like.

Now, if you want an argument for de-centralized government that actually revolves around the issue of de-centralized government, it's that there's no way a bunch of blue bloods in washington, who are paid off by corporations, know what's best for Idaho's school system. The feds would only be able to throw down some white washed legislation that barely does anything for everyone. Not only that, but the feds have much bigger problems to deal with right now than whether or not Johnny can pass a test that he was specifically taught to pass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The SCOTUS is notorious for legislating from the bench in complete disregard to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitutions means, it interprets the Founding Document per the rule of law and doctrine of judicial review. See: Marbury v Madison (1803). There is consequently no such thing as ‘legislating from the bench.’

What do you mean by the myth of states rights?

I don’t ‘mean’ anything, I merely cite the case law: it was the original intent of the Framers that Federal law be supreme, see the case citations in post #22.

The constitution and the framers gave the states right that today the federal govt ignores.

No, the government functions as originally intended, as interpreted by the Supreme Court per Marbury.

The EPA comes to mind. They set policy for industry that does not cover interstate commerce.

In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (2011), the Supreme Court upheld as Constitutional Congress’ authorization of the EPA to address the issue of greenhouse gases.

Where in the Constitiution does the feds have the power over intrastate commerce?

Here:

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941)

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond (1949)

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)

Hicklin v. Orbeck (1978)

The next move for you or anyone else on the right is to cite case law in support of your interpretation of the Constitution.

Otherwise it's only meaningless, subjective opinion – fun and entertaining, perhaps, but meaningless nonetheless.

 

[tonystewart1]

The SCOTUS is notorious for legislating from the bench in complete disregard to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitutions means, it interprets the Founding Document per the rule of law and doctrine of judicial review. See: Marbury v Madison (1803). There is consequently no such thing as ‘legislating from the bench.’

What do you mean by the myth of states rights?

I don’t ‘mean’ anything, I merely cite the case law: it was the original intent of the Framers that Federal law be supreme, see the case citations in post #22.



No, the government functions as originally intended, as interpreted by the Supreme Court per Marbury.

The EPA comes to mind. They set policy for industry that does not cover interstate commerce.

In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (2011), the Supreme Court upheld as Constitutional Congress’ authorization of the EPA to address the issue of greenhouse gases.

Where in the Constitiution does the feds have the power over intrastate commerce?

Here:

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941)

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond (1949)

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)

Hicklin v. Orbeck (1978)

The next move for you or anyone else on the right is to cite case law in support of your interpretation of the Constitution.

Otherwise it's only meaningless, subjective opinion – fun and entertaining, perhaps, but meaningless nonetheless.

I asked you to show me where in the CONSTITUTION does the feds have power over intrastate commerce. Dont show me SCOTUS decsions. That is not the constitution. Point out to me the aritcle and section that covers that power. I will not quote case law because it is my contention that the federal bench is the problem.

 

[tonystewart1]

Here is all of article 3 you point out which section give the bench power to legislate over intrastate commerce.

Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[Avatar4321]

The United States

 

[bripat9643]

What's that make the Civil War?

Very decentralized.

Even though Lincoln created America's original industrial army, the men for it still came form the militias of the several states...Ditto the Confederacy.

You missed my point. If government was working, why was there a civil war then?

People like you were elected to office: people who can't stand to see people doing they want to do instead of what the government tells them to do

 

[Woyzeck]

Very decentralized.

Even though Lincoln created America's original industrial army, the men for it still came form the militias of the several states...Ditto the Confederacy.

You missed my point. If government was working, why was there a civil war then?

People like you were elected to office: people who can't stand to see people doing they want to do instead of what the government tells them to do

Yes, that defeats my point entirely.

Wait no it doesn't answer my question at all, it just insults me.

 

[Oddball]

What's that make the Civil War?

Very decentralized.

Even though Lincoln created America's original industrial army, the men for it still came form the militias of the several states...Ditto the Confederacy.

You missed my point. If government was working, why was there a civil war then?

I missed no point...The war was fought by gathering state militias into large armies.

That decentralized model worked just fine.

 

[Oddball]

Where Had DeCentralized Government Actually Worked?

Somalia?

No....wait.....

Red herring, douchebag.

Somalia has no gubmint at all.

 

[uscitizen]

Decentralized government has worked just as good as tax cuts have at creating jobs.

 

[Woyzeck]

Very decentralized.

Even though Lincoln created America's original industrial army, the men for it still came form the militias of the several states...Ditto the Confederacy.

You missed my point. If government was working, why was there a civil war then?

I missed no point...The war was fought by gathering state militias into large armies.

That decentralized model worked just fine.

A working government is one that has a civil war?

 

[Oddball]

You missed my point. If government was working, why was there a civil war then?

I missed no point...The war was fought by gathering state militias into large armies.

That decentralized model worked just fine.

A working government is one that has a civil war?

Two, actually.

And it wasn't a "civil war" in the traditional sense, that two factions were fighting to attain a singular central authority.

 

[The Rabbi]

The SCOTUS is notorious for legislating from the bench in complete disregard to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitutions means, it interprets the Founding Document per the rule of law and doctrine of judicial review. See: Marbury v Madison (1803). There is consequently no such thing as ‘legislating from the bench.’

What do you mean by the myth of states rights?

I don’t ‘mean’ anything, I merely cite the case law: it was the original intent of the Framers that Federal law be supreme, see the case citations in post #22.



No, the government functions as originally intended, as interpreted by the Supreme Court per Marbury.

The EPA comes to mind. They set policy for industry that does not cover interstate commerce.

In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (2011), the Supreme Court upheld as Constitutional Congress’ authorization of the EPA to address the issue of greenhouse gases.

Where in the Constitiution does the feds have the power over intrastate commerce?

Here:

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941)

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond (1949)

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)

Hicklin v. Orbeck (1978)

The next move for you or anyone else on the right is to cite case law in support of your interpretation of the Constitution.

Otherwise it's only meaningless, subjective opinion – fun and entertaining, perhaps, but meaningless nonetheless.

Actually all of them admit the Feds do not have power over intrastate commerce. Nonetheless because they have a relationship to interstate commerce they can be regulated. That was the holding of Wickard.
So in fact you are incorrect.

 

[Oddball]

Decentralized government has worked just as good as tax cuts have at creating jobs.

Nice non sequitur.

America went from quite literally nothing to the world's pre-eminent economic superpower in a span of but 150 years...But decentralized gubmint doesn't work.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is interesting that we have trouble finding a case where the federal government originally had control over some program or aspect and then devolved that to the states. The opposite has been the case for most of our history, at least since the 1890s.
Clinton's welfare reform did a lot to devolve responsibility to the states. And there was much less welfare dependency as a result.
So the question really is, where has decentralization failed?

 

[uscitizen]

Air polloutino crosses state lines and is therfore regualtable by the federal govt.

 

[uscitizen]

Decentralized government has worked just as good as tax cuts have at creating jobs.

Nice non sequitur.

America went from quite literally nothing to the world's pre-eminent economic superpower in a span of but 150 years...But decentralized gubmint doesn't work.

But we have a centralized government.

 

[Oddball]

Decentralized government has worked just as good as tax cuts have at creating jobs.

Nice non sequitur.

America went from quite literally nothing to the world's pre-eminent economic superpower in a span of but 150 years...But decentralized gubmint doesn't work.

But we have a centralized government.

Only since the progressive era.

Since then, we've gone from a federal gubmint that that consumed a scant 2%-3% of GDP to one that devours well in excess of 20%, two world wars, a cold war, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, scores of other military interventionist "police actions", a socialistic welfare state that has spawned two of the most gigantic Ponzi schemes of all time, a gargantuan federal debt that has zero chance of ever being repaid.

If that's success, gimmie some of that "failure" of a decentralized nation.

 

[Woyzeck]

I missed no point...The war was fought by gathering state militias into large armies.

That decentralized model worked just fine.

A working government is one that has a civil war?

Two, actually.

And it wasn't a "civil war" in the traditional sense, that two factions were fighting to attain a singular central authority.

Ah, not a "real" civil war then, so it doesn't count! 1,030,000 people will be surprised that everyone just went on holiday for four years then.