DGS49
Diamond Member
The "United States." Think about that concept.
Unlike what most Americans think, a "State" is not a sub-division of a country. A State IS a country. This is why we speak of a "two-state solution" in the Holy Land - two separate, independent COUNTRIES.
When the colonies decided to consolidate, they still considered themselves separate STATES - that is, countries. Had they wanted to simply consolidate into one country, they would have chosen a new name like England or France or Norway. No, they wanted to retain their independent sovereignty, while turning over well-defined portions of that sovereignty to a central government.
The portions turned over are listed in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and they are quite logical. These are governmental functions that make sense to be done on a consolidated basis. For example,
THEN, they made sure that the central government did not expand its mission, by passing the Tenth Amendment, which states simply that the powers granted in the Constitution to the central government were exclusive, and EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the States or to the people.
And so, for example, the States retain exclusive jurisdiction over real estate laws, commercial laws, criminal laws (other than for crimes involving the areas assigned to the central government), family law, and so forth.
And this basic framework REMAINS "the law of the land."
As an example of Americans' serious ignorance about this basic framework, consider the relatively recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, centering on the penalty that was assessed against those who did not buy health insurance. CLEARLY, the central government has no power to compel people to get health insurance. It is not among the powers granted to the federal government. So if this was actually a fine or penalty, it was unconstitutional.
But the Supreme Court has an implicit obligation to TRY to interpret the actions of Congress in a way that makes everything Constitutional, if possible. So they interpreted the penalty as a form of TAX, which Congress is [arguably] permitted to impose. They did this even though the Solicitor General, speaking for the Administration, specifically said that it was NOT a tax. So ACA survived to live another day.
Now with this basic structure for the federal government, one wonders how in the world there can exist a Federal Department called the "Department of Education." Under the Tenth Amendment, the central government has NO POWER to do anything in connection with education. It is ENTIRELY the province of the States and the private sector. They might as well have a Department of Real Estate Transfers. It is an absurdity.
I'm not intentionally picking on the Department of Education; it is merely an example of a "cornucopia" of such agencies and departments in Washington, the mere existence of which is clearly unconstitutional.
But MOST IMPORTANT in this discussion is the following point: Saying that something is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it is bad or worthless or of no value. It may be a wonderful program, but unless it is authorized by the Constitution then it ought not to exist. And if the People decide that it should exist, then a Constitutional Amendment is required, to permit it.
Unlike what most Americans think, a "State" is not a sub-division of a country. A State IS a country. This is why we speak of a "two-state solution" in the Holy Land - two separate, independent COUNTRIES.
When the colonies decided to consolidate, they still considered themselves separate STATES - that is, countries. Had they wanted to simply consolidate into one country, they would have chosen a new name like England or France or Norway. No, they wanted to retain their independent sovereignty, while turning over well-defined portions of that sovereignty to a central government.
The portions turned over are listed in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and they are quite logical. These are governmental functions that make sense to be done on a consolidated basis. For example,
- To regulate commerce with foreign countries,
- To coin money,
- To establish a system of post offices, and "post roads" (to facilitate mail delivery),
- To establish a system for patents and copyrights,
- To raise armies, navies, and to declare war.
THEN, they made sure that the central government did not expand its mission, by passing the Tenth Amendment, which states simply that the powers granted in the Constitution to the central government were exclusive, and EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the States or to the people.
And so, for example, the States retain exclusive jurisdiction over real estate laws, commercial laws, criminal laws (other than for crimes involving the areas assigned to the central government), family law, and so forth.
And this basic framework REMAINS "the law of the land."
As an example of Americans' serious ignorance about this basic framework, consider the relatively recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, centering on the penalty that was assessed against those who did not buy health insurance. CLEARLY, the central government has no power to compel people to get health insurance. It is not among the powers granted to the federal government. So if this was actually a fine or penalty, it was unconstitutional.
But the Supreme Court has an implicit obligation to TRY to interpret the actions of Congress in a way that makes everything Constitutional, if possible. So they interpreted the penalty as a form of TAX, which Congress is [arguably] permitted to impose. They did this even though the Solicitor General, speaking for the Administration, specifically said that it was NOT a tax. So ACA survived to live another day.
Now with this basic structure for the federal government, one wonders how in the world there can exist a Federal Department called the "Department of Education." Under the Tenth Amendment, the central government has NO POWER to do anything in connection with education. It is ENTIRELY the province of the States and the private sector. They might as well have a Department of Real Estate Transfers. It is an absurdity.
I'm not intentionally picking on the Department of Education; it is merely an example of a "cornucopia" of such agencies and departments in Washington, the mere existence of which is clearly unconstitutional.
But MOST IMPORTANT in this discussion is the following point: Saying that something is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it is bad or worthless or of no value. It may be a wonderful program, but unless it is authorized by the Constitution then it ought not to exist. And if the People decide that it should exist, then a Constitutional Amendment is required, to permit it.