Column: Here’s What Teatopia Would Look Like

Valley News ^ | June 21, 2014 | Reihan Salam for Slate

[nathanbedford]

But remember: We’re talking about the Tea Party’s long-term vision, whether or not it’s particularly realistic.

One is compelled ask, what is realistic about a $17 trillion national debt, $120 trillion in unfunded federal liabilities, out-of-control annual deficits? The point of this question is not to insinuate that, as bad as The Tea Party might be, the existing situation is worse. The point of the question is to raise the specter of disaster, of a crash of some sort which impoverishes us all, or worse, which could conceivably cost us our constitutional democracy.

There is a surprise hidden in this specter of disaster, that is, when it occurs it is very unlikely that the status quo anti would be restored. The left will agitate for a total takeover and will use propaganda, physical violence, and every Alinsky trick to obtain power. They will see this as their chance to complete Obama's transformation of America.

The Tea Party and most conservatives will attempt to emulate the selflessness and statesmanship of the framing fathers. A noble posture but one which is extremely vulnerable to demagoguery, especially in a crisis.

If the demographics of America continue to deteriorate with fewer and fewer occupants of the land even cognizant much less committed to the Lockean vision of the founding fathers, the voices of sanity will scant be heard.

[PubliusMM]

But, your argument, balch3, supports continued fedgov intervention into the lives of the people. The Founders didn’t structure a superior federal government, which is why they included the enumerated powers in the Constitution. All else was reserved to the States, or to the people.

Definition of marriage, for example, should very clearly be a State issue, as it is the State that issues marriage licenses, etc.
Abortion (as all other health related issues) should NEVER be funded by a federal government. That, also, is a State issue.

Your argument extends the concept of incorporation; which is the fundamental reason we have lost so much freedom to an overreaching federal leviathan.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Skip the navel gazing and look at what Marxists want and are bringing.

[JRandomFreeper]

We must have federal laws against abortion, homo marriage, etc.

I don't see in Art 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution where the federal government has authority on any of those things.

Those are State functions, and should be left to the State.

If you want federal laws, amend the Constitution.

/johnny

[Lee'sGhost]

Please ping me when you do.

[Olog-hai]

I was not advocating a libertarian state; I was advocating a non-socialist one. The Constitution does guarantee republican forms of government to the states, which means (IMV) that socialism of any form attempted in state governments has to be swiftly struck down as unconstitutional by the federal government if it arises.

[JRandomFreeper]

where in the Constitution does it say they couldn't get away with it?

You have it upside down.

The federal government may only legislate on subjects authorized by Art. 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution. Everything else is forbidden to the federal government and left to the States, or to the people.

/johnny

[who_would_fardels_bear]

So basically you’re agreeing with me. The Feds can’t be socialist, but any state that wished to be socialist could, at least according to the Constitution.

[JRandomFreeper]

The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government at the State level. So, no, socialism is repugnant to a republican form of government.

/johnny