Federalism: The Way America Was

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,289
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. “The framers of the Constitution combined the best political ideas from the past with what “The Federalist” called an improved science of politics: federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Doing so, they created a form of government which had, in the words of James Madison, ‘no model on the face of the earth.’
Larry P. Arnn, Hillsdale College.

2. Our Founders envisioned the states as laboratories of democracy and enshrined into our Constitution the principle of federalism. Under federalist principles, the American people endowed the national government with a defined set of limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution. Any powers beyond those specifically given to the federal government fall entirely within the province of the states. Federalism protects liberty by protecting against the overreaching of any one branch of our federal government, and is part of the uniquely American system of checks and balances.
Paloma Zepeda, "Reinventing the Right."






3. This is not to say that the two levels of government are adverse to each other, but to remind that the states are neither subservient to the federal government, nor are they agencies of it. Each as a role, and domain where it is in authority. Under the best of circumstances, they should recognize where each is in control.

4. The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect citizens rights to due process and legal representation, and prohibit unreasonable search and seizures. Further, they guarantee uniformity in the execution of law, but the structure of the system allows for each state to determine the substance of its laws. An example: police may find marijuana in a home. If the home is in Texas, statues make possession a crime, and may send the occupant to jail. But if the home is in California, and there is a legitimate prescription, possession becomes perfectly legal.

a. In both cases, the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant be obtained based on probable cause to justify police entry into the two homes.

b. Amendments are not meant to bind the stares to the whim of the federal government, but rather to set the parameters within which the states administer their laws.





5. The importance of the 9th and 10th amendments needs no restatement, but the common sense basis, might. One danger of a one-size-fits-all federalization is that a law may be successful in one area, but a total failure in another. Local focus allows the efficient allocation of resources. Further, there is the element of accountability of the officials who write and who carry out the policies. And, locals could be expected to recognize and prioritize problem areas far better than distant bureaucrats.

a. The expansionist bureaucratic tendencies of the federal government must be resisted. In the course of exercising legitimate authority, no agency should be allowed to forcibly expand its jurisdiction.

b. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.
Former Senator James Buckley





6. A major consideration is the degree of efficiency required: federal budgets are largely imaginary, while states and municipalities must operate within clearly defined fiscal limits.

a. The governor's proposed budget must be balanced (43 states and Puerto Rico).
b. The budget the legislature passes must be balanced (39 states and Puerto Rico).
c. The budget must be balanced at the end of a fiscal year or biennium, so that no deficit can be carried forward (37 states and Puerto Rico).
State Balanced Budget Requirements

7. Different laws in different states should be seen as a positive.

a. In Texas, a 10-hour safety course, and a background check, and a resident may carry a concealed pistol at all times. The result has been a reduction of violent crimes in many areas. Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers:Law-abiding Public Benefactors | NCPA

b. In Illinois, such law is voted down annually. The view there, is that fewer handguns increase safety. Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Both reflect the will of the population, and the concept is a critical element of American representative democracy.




The foundational principle of our nation is that ultimate sovereignty lies with the citizenry. The further we stray from this, the less we respct the way America was.
Based on "Reinventing the Right," Bryan Jiral
 
Partially to bump the thread and also to chime in:

On another thread, the motif that runs through part of the Book of Judges in the Old Testament is the recurring: "There was no king in Israel, and everyone did what was right in his own eyes." God had given the people judges to arbitrate whatever disputes came up, but the people were more free than any people had ever been. But because they forgot to look to God as their King and to follow His precepts, much as our modern society tends to do, the humanistic life they lived was empty and unsatisfying. Much as our modern society tends to be.

So the people clamored for a king. Much as our modern society tends to do.

As was the plan for the people at the time of Judges, the Founders intended America to be the first nation that had ever existed in which the people would not be subject to the dictates of a pope or monarch or fuedal lord or any other authoritarian power over them. The central government was charged with the duty to protect their rights and then leave the people alone to live their lives as those chose to live them. To form whatever society they wished to have.

But again, the people clamor for a king. And demand to be ruled and released from any obligation to be responsible for their own choices and actions.

Perhaps it was inevitable. But for those of us who love freedom, it is a tragedy unfolding before our eyes.
 
The Constitution has no specific federal powers. This was deliberate. There were actually a good many debates on it..and those that favored "enumerated powers" lost that debate. Subsequently, they lost several wars as well..most notably the Civil War.

What the Constitution does provide is protections against the federal government trampling on the rights of the indivdual.

That's what conservatives DO NOT seem to get.

And that's why this whole notion of STATES RIGHTS is a patently bad idea.

Because it generally means that STATES have the right to trample on the rights of an indivdual.

Every single Conservative law passed by the state either empowers the wealthy..or tramples on the rights of ordinary folks.
 
Partially to bump the thread and also to chime in:

On another thread, the motif that runs through part of the Book of Judges in the Old Testament is the recurring: "There was no king in Israel, and everyone did what was right in his own eyes." God had given the people judges to arbitrate whatever disputes came up, but the people were more free than any people had ever been. But because they forgot to look to God as their King and to follow His precepts, much as our modern society tends to do, the humanistic life they lived was empty and unsatisfying. Much as our modern society tends to be.

So the people clamored for a king. Much as our modern society tends to do.

As was the plan for the people at the time of Judges, the Founders intended America to be the first nation that had ever existed in which the people would not be subject to the dictates of a pope or monarch or fuedal lord or any other authoritarian power over them. The central government was charged with the duty to protect their rights and then leave the people alone to live their lives as those chose to live them. To form whatever society they wished to have.

But again, the people clamor for a king. And demand to be ruled and released from any obligation to be responsible for their own choices and actions.

Perhaps it was inevitable. But for those of us who love freedom, it is a tragedy unfolding before our eyes.

It's not "the people". It's YOU people.
 
At its inception, the US was arguably the most radically new, and technically left, government in existence. The concepts and ideas were excellent. It only had and has one major flaw; it depends upon an informed, thinking and active electorate.

In reality, this electorate has not done its job, so we have arrived at this sad state.
 
Both partisan extremes trample on individual rights.

Banning a valedictorian from praising her deity in a graduation speech is no less trampling of individual rights than employers requiring employees to work on religious holidays.

Every time fake liberals legally limit an individual right corporate lawyers go to work figuring out how to make it pay cash to corporations.
 
1. “The framers of the Constitution combined the best political ideas from the past with what “The Federalist” called an improved science of politics: federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Doing so, they created a form of government which had, in the words of James Madison, ‘no model on the face of the earth.’
Larry P. Arnn, Hillsdale College.

2. Our Founders envisioned the states as laboratories of democracy and enshrined into our Constitution the principle of federalism. Under federalist principles, the American people endowed the national government with a defined set of limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution. Any powers beyond those specifically given to the federal government fall entirely within the province of the states. Federalism protects liberty by protecting against the overreaching of any one branch of our federal government, and is part of the uniquely American system of checks and balances.
Paloma Zepeda, "Reinventing the Right."






3. This is not to say that the two levels of government are adverse to each other, but to remind that the states are neither subservient to the federal government, nor are they agencies of it. Each as a role, and domain where it is in authority. Under the best of circumstances, they should recognize where each is in control.

4. The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect citizens rights to due process and legal representation, and prohibit unreasonable search and seizures. Further, they guarantee uniformity in the execution of law, but the structure of the system allows for each state to determine the substance of its laws. An example: police may find marijuana in a home. If the home is in Texas, statues make possession a crime, and may send the occupant to jail. But if the home is in California, and there is a legitimate prescription, possession becomes perfectly legal.

a. In both cases, the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant be obtained based on probable cause to justify police entry into the two homes.

b. Amendments are not meant to bind the stares to the whim of the federal government, but rather to set the parameters within which the states administer their laws.





5. The importance of the 9th and 10th amendments needs no restatement, but the common sense basis, might. One danger of a one-size-fits-all federalization is that a law may be successful in one area, but a total failure in another. Local focus allows the efficient allocation of resources. Further, there is the element of accountability of the officials who write and who carry out the policies. And, locals could be expected to recognize and prioritize problem areas far better than distant bureaucrats.

a. The expansionist bureaucratic tendencies of the federal government must be resisted. In the course of exercising legitimate authority, no agency should be allowed to forcibly expand its jurisdiction.

b. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.
Former Senator James Buckley





6. A major consideration is the degree of efficiency required: federal budgets are largely imaginary, while states and municipalities must operate within clearly defined fiscal limits.

a. The governor's proposed budget must be balanced (43 states and Puerto Rico).
b. The budget the legislature passes must be balanced (39 states and Puerto Rico).
c. The budget must be balanced at the end of a fiscal year or biennium, so that no deficit can be carried forward (37 states and Puerto Rico).
State Balanced Budget Requirements

7. Different laws in different states should be seen as a positive.

a. In Texas, a 10-hour safety course, and a background check, and a resident may carry a concealed pistol at all times. The result has been a reduction of violent crimes in many areas. Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers:Law-abiding Public Benefactors | NCPA

b. In Illinois, such law is voted down annually. The view there, is that fewer handguns increase safety. Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Both reflect the will of the population, and the concept is a critical element of American representative democracy.




The foundational principle of our nation is that ultimate sovereignty lies with the citizenry. The further we stray from this, the less we respct the way America was.
Based on "Reinventing the Right," Bryan Jiral




caught you saying the founders loved Democracy.
 
The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson
 
The people themselves install their state and local governments and the people themselves have the right to remove those in state government who would oppress or disrespect them. And the people have the right to move out of a state or county or community in which the society formed by the people is not to their liking.

Those "laboratories of democracy", unfettered by a central authority, allowed the people to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. Some wanted little theocracies. Some wanted pretty much anarchy and anything goes. But there is no freedom unless there is freedom to be wrong as well as right.

As it turned out, the little theocracies dissolved and the towns in their hellfire days were modified by those who wanted to live in peace and safety. And for more than 150 years, the people prospered and thrived and learned how to do things better purely by living their lives under freedom. Yes, we made many mistakes, there were many inexcusable policies and actions here and there, but again, there is no freedom unless there is freedom to be wrong as well as right.

But then those in government figured out how to get around the freedom thing and impose more authoritarian central government. And once they learned how to use the people's money to buy their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, freedom beganto erode and dissolve as more and more were bribed to give it up.

And now too many of us no long appreciate freedom and the choice to be right or wrong. Too many clamor for a king to take care of them so they do not have to be responsible to do that for themselves.
 
The people themselves install their state and local governments and the people themselves have the right to remove those in state government who would oppress or disrespect them. And the people have the right to move out of a state or county or community in which the society formed by the people is not to their liking.

Those "laboratories of democracy", unfettered by a central authority, allowed the people to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. Some wanted little theocracies. Some wanted pretty much anarchy and anything goes. But there is no freedom unless there is freedom to be wrong as well as right.

As it turned out, the little theocracies dissolved and the towns in their hellfire days were modified by those who wanted to live in peace and safety. And for more than 150 years, the people prospered and thrived and learned how to do things better purely by living their lives under freedom. Yes, we made many mistakes, there were many inexcusable policies and actions here and there, but again, there is no freedom unless there is freedom to be wrong as well as right.

But then those in government figured out how to get around the freedom thing and impose more authoritarian central government. And once they learned how to use the people's money to buy their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, freedom beganto erode and dissolve as more and more were bribed to give it up.

And now too many of us no long appreciate freedom and the choice to be right or wrong. Too many clamor for a king to take care of them so they do not have to be responsible to do that for themselves.

You really need to pick up a history book.

Utah War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Category:Rebellions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The people themselves install their state and local governments and the people themselves have the right to remove those in state government who would oppress or disrespect them. And the people have the right to move out of a state or county or community in which the society formed by the people is not to their liking.

Those "laboratories of democracy", unfettered by a central authority, allowed the people to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. Some wanted little theocracies. Some wanted pretty much anarchy and anything goes. But there is no freedom unless there is freedom to be wrong as well as right.

As it turned out, the little theocracies dissolved and the towns in their hellfire days were modified by those who wanted to live in peace and safety. And for more than 150 years, the people prospered and thrived and learned how to do things better purely by living their lives under freedom. Yes, we made many mistakes, there were many inexcusable policies and actions here and there, but again, there is no freedom unless there is freedom to be wrong as well as right.

But then those in government figured out how to get around the freedom thing and impose more authoritarian central government. And once they learned how to use the people's money to buy their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, freedom beganto erode and dissolve as more and more were bribed to give it up.

And now too many of us no long appreciate freedom and the choice to be right or wrong. Too many clamor for a king to take care of them so they do not have to be responsible to do that for themselves.

You really need to pick up a history book.

Utah War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Category:Rebellions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh I've picked up a few now and then. Maybe you missed the part where I acknowledge that a free people will sometimes be wrong as well as right. But when the federal government isn't meddling with that, a free people generally, on average, will work out what's wrong and make it right. It happens again, and again, and again, most especially if they are also a free AND religious people.

But when the federal government has the power and gets it wrong, it becomes much more difficult for the people to do something about that. And once they have been bribed to submit to the authority of a federal government, they are likely to turn over more and more of their freedoms lest the bribes be reduced or taken away.

And as we students of history have witnessed, the more the federal government is corrupted in its original purpose, the more license there is in the state and local governments to also be corrupt and serve themselves instead of the people.
 
The law is a two way street.

Every time fake liberal fascism limits free speech or mandates unpleasant associations corporate lawyers figure out how to make the changes increase corporate hegemony over the US and its citizens.

Neither partisan extreme has any interest in the limits of the constitution. Both partisan extremes are entirely focused on expanding constitutional imperatives in the directions favoring their corporate sponsors.
 
The people themselves install their state and local governments and the people themselves have the right to remove those in state government who would oppress or disrespect them. And the people have the right to move out of a state or county or community in which the society formed by the people is not to their liking.

Those "laboratories of democracy", unfettered by a central authority, allowed the people to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. Some wanted little theocracies. Some wanted pretty much anarchy and anything goes. But there is no freedom unless there is freedom to be wrong as well as right.

As it turned out, the little theocracies dissolved and the towns in their hellfire days were modified by those who wanted to live in peace and safety. And for more than 150 years, the people prospered and thrived and learned how to do things better purely by living their lives under freedom. Yes, we made many mistakes, there were many inexcusable policies and actions here and there, but again, there is no freedom unless there is freedom to be wrong as well as right.

But then those in government figured out how to get around the freedom thing and impose more authoritarian central government. And once they learned how to use the people's money to buy their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, freedom beganto erode and dissolve as more and more were bribed to give it up.

And now too many of us no long appreciate freedom and the choice to be right or wrong. Too many clamor for a king to take care of them so they do not have to be responsible to do that for themselves.

You really need to pick up a history book.

Utah War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Category:Rebellions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh I've picked up a few now and then. Maybe you missed the part where I acknowledge that a free people will sometimes be wrong as well as right. But when the federal government isn't meddling with that, a free people generally, on average, will work out what's wrong and make it right. It happens again, and again, and again, most especially if they are also a free AND religious people.

But when the federal government has the power and gets it wrong, it becomes much more difficult for the people to do something about that. And once they have been bribed to submit to the authority of a federal government, they are likely to turn over more and more of their freedoms lest the bribes be reduced or taken away.

And as we students of history have witnessed, the more the federal government is corrupted in its original purpose, the more license there is in the state and local governments to also be corrupt and serve themselves instead of the people.

Your "free people" crap ends at your religion.

It's simple enough. Your code talking is easy to see through.
 

Oh I've picked up a few now and then. Maybe you missed the part where I acknowledge that a free people will sometimes be wrong as well as right. But when the federal government isn't meddling with that, a free people generally, on average, will work out what's wrong and make it right. It happens again, and again, and again, most especially if they are also a free AND religious people.

But when the federal government has the power and gets it wrong, it becomes much more difficult for the people to do something about that. And once they have been bribed to submit to the authority of a federal government, they are likely to turn over more and more of their freedoms lest the bribes be reduced or taken away.

And as we students of history have witnessed, the more the federal government is corrupted in its original purpose, the more license there is in the state and local governments to also be corrupt and serve themselves instead of the people.

Your "free people" crap ends at your religion.

It's simple enough. Your code talking is easy to see through.

Good. Then you do see that a free people will get it right much more quickly and efficiently and effectively than will an opportunistic authoritarian central government. Through trial and error, a free people will make better laws for themselves than the federal government can ever do for them. All things considered, a free people will spend their money more efficiently and effectively in ways that benefit all than a central, authoritarian government can ever do for them. A free people tempered by their religious faith will demonstrate true charity and benevolence far more honestly and effectively than any central government ever could.

I'm so happy you see it that way.

When most Americans can relearn that simple principle, things will get better here much
 
1. “The framers of the Constitution combined the best political ideas from the past with what “The Federalist” called an improved science of politics: federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Doing so, they created a form of government which had, in the words of James Madison, ‘no model on the face of the earth.’
Larry P. Arnn, Hillsdale College.

2. Our Founders envisioned the states as laboratories of democracy and enshrined into our Constitution the principle of federalism. Under federalist principles, the American people endowed the national government with a defined set of limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution. Any powers beyond those specifically given to the federal government fall entirely within the province of the states. Federalism protects liberty by protecting against the overreaching of any one branch of our federal government, and is part of the uniquely American system of checks and balances.
Paloma Zepeda, "Reinventing the Right."






3. This is not to say that the two levels of government are adverse to each other, but to remind that the states are neither subservient to the federal government, nor are they agencies of it. Each as a role, and domain where it is in authority. Under the best of circumstances, they should recognize where each is in control.

4. The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect citizens rights to due process and legal representation, and prohibit unreasonable search and seizures. Further, they guarantee uniformity in the execution of law, but the structure of the system allows for each state to determine the substance of its laws. An example: police may find marijuana in a home. If the home is in Texas, statues make possession a crime, and may send the occupant to jail. But if the home is in California, and there is a legitimate prescription, possession becomes perfectly legal.

a. In both cases, the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant be obtained based on probable cause to justify police entry into the two homes.

b. Amendments are not meant to bind the stares to the whim of the federal government, but rather to set the parameters within which the states administer their laws.





5. The importance of the 9th and 10th amendments needs no restatement, but the common sense basis, might. One danger of a one-size-fits-all federalization is that a law may be successful in one area, but a total failure in another. Local focus allows the efficient allocation of resources. Further, there is the element of accountability of the officials who write and who carry out the policies. And, locals could be expected to recognize and prioritize problem areas far better than distant bureaucrats.

a. The expansionist bureaucratic tendencies of the federal government must be resisted. In the course of exercising legitimate authority, no agency should be allowed to forcibly expand its jurisdiction.

b. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.
Former Senator James Buckley





6. A major consideration is the degree of efficiency required: federal budgets are largely imaginary, while states and municipalities must operate within clearly defined fiscal limits.

a. The governor's proposed budget must be balanced (43 states and Puerto Rico).
b. The budget the legislature passes must be balanced (39 states and Puerto Rico).
c. The budget must be balanced at the end of a fiscal year or biennium, so that no deficit can be carried forward (37 states and Puerto Rico).
State Balanced Budget Requirements

7. Different laws in different states should be seen as a positive.

a. In Texas, a 10-hour safety course, and a background check, and a resident may carry a concealed pistol at all times. The result has been a reduction of violent crimes in many areas. Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers:Law-abiding Public Benefactors | NCPA

b. In Illinois, such law is voted down annually. The view there, is that fewer handguns increase safety. Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Both reflect the will of the population, and the concept is a critical element of American representative democracy.




The foundational principle of our nation is that ultimate sovereignty lies with the citizenry. The further we stray from this, the less we respct the way America was.
Based on "Reinventing the Right," Bryan Jiral

As Justice Kennedy expressed in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), the Framers created our Federal system to “split the atom of sovereignty,” where both Federal and state governments concurrently administer to the needs of the people.

But as the Court held in U.S. Term Limits, the Constitution clearly makes Federal authority supreme, where the state of Arkansas, in this case, may not impose term limits on its representatives serving in the US Congress. Indeed, Constitutional authority emanates from the people of the Nation as a whole, not the people of the individual states.

As Kennedy further notes in his concurrence:

It might be objected that because the States ratified the Constitution, the people can delegate power only through the States or by acting in their capacities as citizens of particular States. See post, at 2-3. But in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court set forth its authoritative rejection of this idea:

"The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument . . . was submitted to the people. . . . It is true, they assembled in their several States--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments." 4 Wheat., at 403.


The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere. See id., at 430 (where there is an attempt at "usurpation of a power which the people of a single State cannot give," there can be no question whether the power "has been surrendered" by the people of a single State because "[t]he right never existed"). That the States may not invade the sphere of federal sovereignty is as incontestable...

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
 
Up until the Teddy Roosevelt administration, those in the federal government AND the Supreme Court were of one opinion that the federal government was authorized to do only what the Constitution assigned to the federal government. Yes, we have had presidents who pushed the envelope a bit on that to deal with extreme situations--Abraham Lincoln dealing with the secession of eleven states from the union for instance. But largely, our federal government had not seriously overstepped its boundaries until then.

Once Teddy Roosevelt turned the Constitution on its head and declared that the federal government was authorized to do anything it wanted that was not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, we have had mostly corrupt governments who use their powers and our money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes. And American liberties that the Founders were so diligent to give us have been eroding ever since.

The OP challenges us to re-evaluate whether we are getting what we truly want from our government and the Supreme Court it puts into power and the other judges that it appoints. If you have corrupt, opportunistic politicians, is it not likely they would appoint judges and justices who won't rock the boat for them?

Those who want a king to take care of them and relieve them of all or most personal responsiblity or consequences turn a blind eye to what is happening.

The rest of us continue to push for the American people to wake up before we lose every principle and concept upon which this nation was founded. In my opinion, this is the last generation that will have any realistic ability to turn it around without initiating another bloody revolution.
 
Up until the Teddy Roosevelt administration, those in the federal government AND the Supreme Court were of one opinion that the federal government was authorized to do only what the Constitution assigned to the federal government. Yes, we have had presidents who pushed the envelope a bit on that to deal with extreme situations--Abraham Lincoln dealing with the secession of eleven states from the union for instance. But largely, our federal government had not seriously overstepped its boundaries until then.

Once Teddy Roosevelt turned the Constitution on its head and declared that the federal government was authorized to do anything it wanted that was not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, we have had mostly corrupt governments who use their powers and our money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes. And American liberties that the Founders were so diligent to give us have been eroding ever since.

The OP challenges us to re-evaluate whether we are getting what we truly want from our government and the Supreme Court it puts into power and the other judges that it appoints. If you have corrupt, opportunistic politicians, is it not likely they would appoint judges and justices who won't rock the boat for them?

Those who want a king to take care of them and relieve them of all or most personal responsiblity or consequences turn a blind eye to what is happening.

The rest of us continue to push for the American people to wake up before we lose every principle and concept upon which this nation was founded. In my opinion, this is the last generation that will have any realistic ability to turn it around without initiating another bloody revolution.

Do you think that politicians were anything other than corrupt and opportunist in the past? I'm too cynical to believe that. :tongue:
 
1. “The framers of the Constitution combined the best political ideas from the past with what “The Federalist” called an improved science of politics: federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Doing so, they created a form of government which had, in the words of James Madison, ‘no model on the face of the earth.’
Larry P. Arnn, Hillsdale College.

2. Our Founders envisioned the states as laboratories of democracy and enshrined into our Constitution the principle of federalism. Under federalist principles, the American people endowed the national government with a defined set of limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution. Any powers beyond those specifically given to the federal government fall entirely within the province of the states. Federalism protects liberty by protecting against the overreaching of any one branch of our federal government, and is part of the uniquely American system of checks and balances.
Paloma Zepeda, "Reinventing the Right."

...and from day one of the new nation the people who actually wrote "The Federalist" to the people of the state of New York, disagreed over how to use those federal powers and exactly how narrowly or broadly they should be defined.

The people who wrote The federalist did not get all of what they wanted in the US Constitution, yet they agreed to band together to pass a compromise. The US Constitution is a flawed document. Nothing is perfect.


The Federalist Society was started in the 1970s by people with an agenda who have fed garbage to the people for decades now. They embrace Federalism while cherry picking what they will (familiar?) from Hamilton and Madison.

re: during ratification, Madison and Hamilton were Federalists battling the anti-Federalists. Madison ended up joining Jefferson and others in forming a 'faction' a 'party' .... ... the Democratic-Republican Party, while Hamilton and his people became the Federalist Party
 
Last edited:
Up until the Teddy Roosevelt administration, those in the federal government AND the Supreme Court were of one opinion that the federal government was authorized to do only what the Constitution assigned to the federal government. Yes, we have had presidents who pushed the envelope a bit on that to deal with extreme situations--Abraham Lincoln dealing with the secession of eleven states from the union for instance. But largely, our federal government had not seriously overstepped its boundaries until then.

Once Teddy Roosevelt turned the Constitution on its head and declared that the federal government was authorized to do anything it wanted that was not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, we have had mostly corrupt governments who use their powers and our money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes. And American liberties that the Founders were so diligent to give us have been eroding ever since.

The OP challenges us to...

The OP challenges credulity. :eusa_whistle:

Nothing has changed. You remind me of Thomas Jefferson in his most daft moments when he would write about a past that existed only in his mind. :laugh2: The arguments are not about doing something the US Constitution doesn't grant. The arguments since day one have always been over how broadly to interpret powers.

Funny how very little changes. Since the first days of the Republic people have been misrepresenting and castigating the opposition as un American and/or shredders of the Constitution

:rofl:
 
The Constitution has no specific federal powers. This was deliberate. There were actually a good many debates on it..and those that favored "enumerated powers" lost that debate. Subsequently, they lost several wars as well..most notably the Civil War.

What the Constitution does provide is protections against the federal government trampling on the rights of the indivdual.

That's what conservatives DO NOT seem to get.

And that's why this whole notion of STATES RIGHTS is a patently bad idea.

Because it generally means that STATES have the right to trample on the rights of an indivdual.

Every single Conservative law passed by the state either empowers the wealthy..or tramples on the rights of ordinary folks.

1. "The Constitution has no specific federal powers."

Your posts regularly approximate a third grader attempting to be relevant in a graduate school program.

Worse,....when corrected, you refuse to learn from the corrections.

Let's see:
"The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of Congress.[1] In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to explicit restrictions in the Bill of Rights and other protections in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Enumerated powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Forum List

Back
Top