Federalism: The Way America Was

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Thanks so much.

I don't know how the adults would get along without your valuable input.



OK...back to the sandbox.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Excellent post.

Insightful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

".... how to use those federal powers...."


Powers?

What powers???

Your bud Sal-monella said, in the second or third post that the Constitution gave no powers.



You guys should work this out.....I'll hold your coats.....

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Yes, I believe the Founders were all wealthy, well established men with holdings of land and and enjoying the luxuries that wealth could provide for them. They had absolutely nothing (other than freedom) to gain and everything to lose by challenging King George. And they risked everything they had to wrest this nation away from England. If they had failed, and had survived the carnage of the war, they would have uniformly been shot as traitors, and their lands and other resources confiscated and redistributed to those loyal to and favored by the king.

Because they risked so much to give us this great nation, and because of the extensive documentation they left for us in the way of transcribed speeches, notes, letters, and official writings, I trust their motives. And being an avid student of history, I have studied the opinions of various presidents through the decades since the Revolution and all stuck pretty darn close to the concept that the federal government had no authority to dispense aid or charity or any form of assistance to any individual, entity, group, or demographic. Teddy Roosevelt opened the door to challenge that concept, and FDR walked through it.

And that started a tiny snowball rolling that has been gathering mass and speed ever since and now threatens to flatten us. Had the federal government stuck to the limitations the Founders put on it, we would be infinitely better off now than we are.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Yes, I believe the Founders were all wealthy, well established men with holdings of land and and enjoying the luxuries that wealth could provide for them. They had absolutely nothing (other than freedom) to gain and everything to lose by challenging King George. And they risked everything they had to wrest this nation away from England. If they had failed, and had survived the carnage of the war, they would have uniformly been shot as traitors, and their lands and other resources confiscated and redistributed to those loyal to and favored by the king.

Because they risked so much to give us this great nation, and because of the extensive documentation they left for us in the way of transcribed speeches, notes, letters, and official writings, I trust their motives. And being an avid student of history, I have studied the opinions of various presidents through the decades since the Revolution and all stuck pretty darn close to the concept that the federal government had no authority to dispense aid or charity or any form of assistance to any individual, entity, group, or demographic. Teddy Roosevelt opened the door to challenge that concept, and FDR walked through it.

And that started a tiny snowball rolling that has been gathering mass and speed ever since and now threatens to flatten us. Had the federal government stuck to the limitations the Founders put on it, we would be infinitely better off now than we are.

But if everything you just stated is true, it still doesn't really answer my question.

Corruption and opportunism take many forms.

More, I am of the opinion that political corruption and opportunism have likely been present, and probably prevalent, in governments throughout human history.

That the US government may have been a better system than others in no way means it ever was immune from such corruption.

Things may be worse now. I don't quite buy into that notion, but it's certainly possible. Still, I have to wonder how much of the 'worse' is actually more a matter of the corruption being more visible? With the technological advancements we've had in (relatively) recent history, it has become FAR easier for people to be informed of any wrongdoing discovered in government. I think it very likely that much corruption and wrongdoing in the past was simply easier to cover up.

Anyway, I have no problem with wanting to change the way things work. I just like to see any such changes promoted be incremental, as massive upheaval in the way government works, even if good in the long run, could easily have devastating effects short term. I also think that promoting such a change in mindset in the general populace would be more likely accomplished with a gradual presentation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think that politicians were anything other than corrupt and opportunist in the past? I'm too cynical to believe that.

Yes, I believe the Founders were all wealthy, well established men with holdings of land and and enjoying the luxuries that wealth could provide for them. They had absolutely nothing (other than freedom) to gain and everything to lose by challenging King George. And they risked everything they had to wrest this nation away from England. If they had failed, and had survived the carnage of the war, they would have uniformly been shot as traitors, and their lands and other resources confiscated and redistributed to those loyal to and favored by the king.

Because they risked so much to give us this great nation, and because of the extensive documentation they left for us in the way of transcribed speeches, notes, letters, and official writings, I trust their motives. And being an avid student of history, I have studied the opinions of various presidents through the decades since the Revolution and all stuck pretty darn close to the concept that the federal government had no authority to dispense aid or charity or any form of assistance to any individual, entity, group, or demographic. Teddy Roosevelt opened the door to challenge that concept, and FDR walked through it.

And that started a tiny snowball rolling that has been gathering mass and speed ever since and now threatens to flatten us. Had the federal government stuck to the limitations the Founders put on it, we would be infinitely better off now than we are.

But if everything you just stated is true, it still doesn't really answer my question.

Corruption and opportunism take many forms.

More, I am of the opinion that political corruption and opportunism have likely been present, and probably prevalent, in governments throughout human history.

That the US government may have been a better system than others in no way means it ever was immune from such corruption.

Things may be worse now. I don't quite buy into that notion, but it's certainly possible. Still, I have to wonder how much of the 'worse' is actually more a matter of the corruption being more visible? With the technological advancements we've had in (relatively) recent history, it has become FAR easier for people to be informed of any wrongdoing discovered in government. I think it very likely that much corruption and wrongdoing in the past was simply easier to cover up.

Anyway, I have no problem with wanting to change the way things work. I just like to see any such changes promoted be incremental, as massive upheaval in the way government works, even if good in the long run, could easily have devastating effects short term. I also think that promoting such a change in mindset in the general populace would be more likely accomplished with a gradual presentation.

You can, I believe, judge it fairly well by how little money the federal government in the first decades that our nation existed as the U.S.A., and how it is obvious that the leaders then took almost nothing for themselves. You can judge by the laws they passed and the effect of the laws they passed on the people. If the people didn't like something Congress did, they let the government know loudly and clearly, and unpopular measures were quickly reversed. It truly was a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

It is not that now, and Congress as well as all important appointed positions and bureaucrats who serve at the pleasure of the government now are all career politicans who are enriching themselves mightily at our expense. And whatever they do for the people is carefully crafted to ensure votes from certain constituencies which is corrupting and damaging those constituencies.

The ONLY solution I see is a Constitutional amendment to deny Congress, the President, and/or the bureaucracy of all ability to use the people's money to benefit anybody if it does not benefit all, rich and poor regardless of politcal or economic status, equally.

 

[Sallow]

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

We have a strong central government because the founders wanted it that way.

Each and every time the forces of conservativism have tried to topple it..they get swatted and the central government becomes stronger.

So much for your "trial and error" malarkey.

 

[Sallow]

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

Take a class in civics..PC.

Get out of the FOX box every once in a while.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The tenth is a "catch all" and was never meant to assert that States were more powerful then the central government. It was meant to allow states to decide on issues not specifically covered in the Constitution..like say..prostitution. Or gambling.

The Constitution, for all intents and purposes, is supreme.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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

I like how she didn't address anything in your statement and then left you with a petty insult. Yet somehow people continue responding to her

 

[Montrovant]

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

I like how she didn't address anything in your statement and then left you with a petty insult. Yet somehow people continue responding to her

If I only responded to posters who never use insults and/or never reply to posts without addressing the salient points, I'd have a very small list of people to talk to here.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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

I like how she didn't address anything in your statement and then left you with a petty insult. Yet somehow people continue responding to her

If I only responded to posters who never use insults and/or never reply to posts without addressing the salient points, I'd have a very small list of people to talk to here.

Yea but she was just hating on Dante for the sake of hating on Dante. He made a good point and instead of addressing it she copped out.

 

[there4eyeM]

If the references to T. Roosevelt involves 'trust busting' and such, we have to remember that this was in relation to a few greedy people who stood economics and entrepreneurship upside down to the detriment of everyone and everything except them. So, if excesses have happened in the wake of this (and I believe they have), the source and provocation is not the government. The people who followed in positions of government power merely took advantage of situations created by corporate excess.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Take a class in civics..PC.

Get out of the FOX box every once in a while.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The tenth is a "catch all" and was never meant to assert that States were more powerful then the central government. It was meant to allow states to decide on issues not specifically covered in the Constitution..like say..prostitution. Or gambling.

The Constitution, for all intents and purposes, is supreme.

"The Constitution has no specific federal powers."
Who was the dope who said that?

Oh...right...you did.


But it seems you are actually educable....you didn't repeat it.



Both of your oars are in the water,.... but on the same side of the boat.

 

[editec]

No government structure, no laws, and no economic system can completely eradicate the potential for perfidious people motivated by averice and the lust for power to corrupt the system.

If that WAS possible, we'd STILL HAVE a government that serves we the people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the references to T. Roosevelt involves 'trust busting' and such, we have to remember that this was in relation to a few greedy people who stood economics and entrepreneurship upside down to the detriment of everyone and everything except them. So, if excesses have happened in the wake of this (and I believe they have), the source and provocation is not the government. The people who followed in positions of government power merely took advantage of situations created by corporate excess.

There certainly is a element of truth in our post....not that there often isn't....but you aren't able to place same in the proper context, nor give the proper weight to the elements.

1. There were necessary economic reforms that gave impetus to early progressive movements.



2. The necessity was so great (although you are wrong about only a few 'greedy' folks benefiting....after all, folks gave their money voluntarily, e.g., kerosene vs. whale oil) that of course the attempt at reform went awry.

a. "During the 1860s, John D. Rockefeller and Samuel Andrews worked to improve the efficiency of petroleum processing. Together, and backed by an army of investors, they set up a network of kerosene distilleries that would later develop into Standard Oil."
1846: The Year We Hit Peak Sperm Whale Oil

Rockefeller benefited the entire nation.




3. TR had no respect for the Constitution. The same, and worse, for Wilson.

a. “Teddy Roosevelt, in his “New Nationalism” speech” rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” New Nationalism Speech by Theodore Roosevelt

b. More from the same speech, 'The New Nationalism,' 1910: “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.

c. And his view of the Constitution? ‘Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."’ 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. By Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (p. 139) see The Mises Review: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.


d. Wilson: “ the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…”( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Login)




4. The picture you paint applied to run-away capitalism....that hasn't existed since the early 20th century.

Unfortunately, run-away Liberalism, has.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No government structure, no laws, and no economic system can completely eradicate the potential for perfidious people motivated by averice and the lust for power to corrupt the system.

If that WAS possible, we'd STILL HAVE a government that serves we the people.

1. The answer is the free market. It is not perfect; it is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand.

a. In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc.


2. In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!


3. Hayek points out that there are no solutions, merely tradeoffs. Come up with a way to provide healthcare insurance to all the uninsured…but at the cost of dismantling the healthcare system to the remaining millions? Rationing, shortages, abuse, delay and injustice.


4. All civilizations need and get government. And many of these began as welfare states, dedicated, supposedly, to distributing the abundant good things to all. The results can be seen in the failures of communist states, socialist states, with the resultant costs, rationing, and dissolution. We get to choose between liberty- the freedom from the state to pursue happiness- and some ephemeral ‘equality’ which would require a state capable and empowered to function in all facets of life, which means totalitarianism, dictatorship.
David Mamen, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 12.




The Left often paints our society along these lines: "... perfidious people motivated by averice and the lust for power to corrupt the system."

What they forget is the axiom: 'we can only judge others by ourselves.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

I like how she didn't address anything in your statement and then left you with a petty insult. Yet somehow people continue responding to her

1. He said no powers, I linked proof of powers.


2.It would be difficult for you to be as stupid as you appear to be....so, the reason must be an attempt to confront me without opening yourself to the danger of confronting me.


Take a chance....it won't hurt too much.


3. Petty insults? Is that what you're afraid of?
Poor baby.
You must be such a delicate child that you wash in Woolite.

I like insulting dolts like you.
It's more fun than watching the White House spokesman on a lie detector.



Now...have an original thought and bring it on.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the references to T. Roosevelt involves 'trust busting' and such, we have to remember that this was in relation to a few greedy people who stood economics and entrepreneurship upside down to the detriment of everyone and everything except them. So, if excesses have happened in the wake of this (and I believe they have), the source and provocation is not the government. The people who followed in positions of government power merely took advantage of situations created by corporate excess.

I disagree. Yes, it is in the interest of promoting the general welfare and absolutely a function of the federal government to secure our rights by disallowing corporations to engineer monopolies and deny others the ability to compete. There is no right, however, to guarantee that all WILL compete successfully, and no authority given to the federal government to favor or advantage one entity over another.

So there is a fine line to walk there to not overstep the boundaries between equal opportunity and advocacy. Teddy Roosevelt didn't bother to draw much distinction between those two things. And in truth, there is some sympathy for his efforts because he was able to bust up some monopolies, arbitrate some labor disputes, and his efforts in conservation are commendable.

Unfortunately, in the process of rewriting the role of the federal government in such matters, he failed to include sufficient safeguards to prevent future administrations from using these new powers as fiat to seize even more power and force the government in ever increasing issues, whether or not they were infringing on anybody's rights. And the result is the enormous albatross of a federal government hung around the necks of the people and ever increasing power to government at all levels.

It is slowly but surely taking away our liberties, one by one, until there will be none left and government has full power to assign whatever privileges it is willing to allow to the people. The state and local governments will be unable to resist or reject any dictate of the federal powers. Again, I believe this is the last generation with any hope to stop that in its tracks and turn it around.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was surprised, and, frankly, pleased, to hear the panel on Fox News Sunday discuss the possible outcome of the Supreme Court cases centering on same-sex marriage.

Both the Liberal representatives, Mara Liasson and Chuck Lane suggest that the Court is likely to hesitate at finding same-sex marriage to be a constitutional right, and, rather, to allow the fifty laboratories of democracy to each determine the outcome.

As I have wished, as with amendments, it should be up to the voting public, and/or legislatures, rather than to a judicial fiat.


BTW....it was mentioned that Justice Ginsburg has now stated that Roe was a step too far...and for the same reasons as mentioned above.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was surprised, and, frankly, pleased, to hear the panel on Fox News Sunday discuss the possible outcome of the Supreme Court cases centering on same-sex marriage.

Both the Liberal representatives, Mara Liasson and Chuck Lane suggest that the Court is likely to hesitate at finding same-sex marriage to be a constitutional right, and, rather, to allow the fifty laboratories of democracy to each determine the outcome.

As I have wished, as with amendments, it should be up to the voting public, and/or legislatures, rather than to a judicial fiat.


BTW....it was mentioned that Justice Ginsburg has now stated that Roe was a step too far...and for the same reasons as mentioned above.

For the Supreme Court to begin rolling back the federalization of the country would be a huge helpful step in reversing much of the damage that has been done. But I continue to watch and not get my hopes up a great deal in these things. Not after the Kelo vs New London ruling. Or the more recent one on Obamacare. But maybe even the Justices themselves are becoming aware and conscious of how abuse of power at any level is destructive and unAmerican and are taking their personal responsibility more seriously? We can hope.