Posted on 09/24/2007 10:14:47 AM PDT by Jim W N
“There has been a void in the Republican presidential race. The GOP candidates have spoken about immigration, taxes, social issues, and the war in Iraq. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain have also spoken frequently about Ronald Reagan in order to position themselves as the political heirs to the great president. The candidates, however, have overlooked a central idea that animated Reagan’s view of government. That was federalism, the constitutional principle that the federal government’s responsibilities are ‘few and defined’ as James Madison put it. That’s why I’m pleased that Fred Thompson has thrown his hat into the ring. Thompson has been talking and writing about his belief in federalism. In a recent speech, he argued that ‘centralized government is not the solution to all our problems...[T]his was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.’ Thompson rightly argues that the abandonment of federalism has caused a range of pathologies including a lack of government accountability, the squelching of policy diversity between the states, and the overburdening of federal policymakers with local matters when they should be focusing on national-security issues.”
A note on terminology. Usage of words and terms these days are somewhat misleading and confusing. Liberals have nothing to do with liberty, “progressives" have little to do with real progress, "feminism” militates against femininity, and the term "federalism" is being used as the philosophy against a large federal government. Thank God someone is standing up for decentralized government, but the constitutionally mandated limits and decentralization of government is normally termed a republic.
"A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected."
~~~ Fred Thompson, LINK
President Reagan`s Executive Order #12612: Federalism: October 26, 1987:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Sec. 2.:
(a) Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government.
“In a recent speech, he argued that ‘centralized government is not the solution to all our problems...[T]his was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.’ Thompson rightly argues that the abandonment of federalism has caused a range of pathologies including a lack of government accountability, the squelching of policy diversity between the states, and the overburdening of federal policymakers with local matters when they should be focusing on national-security issues.””
Wow, there is no place for logic like that in this country. The right will respond with a rousing cheer...the left will respond with “You mean, no more welfare checks?!?!?!”
I strees our school systems would be so much better off if they were all locally ran again, just like they used to be. Get the federal folks out of my local elementary.
Speel check is your friend!:)
Not by many in the self proclaimed "religious right".
You don't perceive the "religious right" as wanting limited government? I'm a Constitutional conservative and I know many Christians along with my self who have been longing for the days of hearing, “Government isn't the solution, it's the problem”, (Reagan, 1980 campaign). Maybe I misunderstood your post.
I am sure the Federalism talk will get some votes, but Fred has to contend with the Federal Bench which will not allow Federalism to get a foothold. 187 in California is a prime example. We said we wouldn’t pay for illegals to go to school and one Federal judge said “yes you will”. So much for Federalism, one judge=10million votes...Good luck Fred.
That's why I said "many" in the "religious right". There are a number of people, some of them right here on FR, who, although conservative on what many call "social issues", are definitely not for limited government if government intervention will advance their social, and sometimes religious, goals. There are, of course, many "social conservatives" who also understand, and believe in, limited government. I will put you down as one of the latter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL! So true, and you have the ability to vote him out of office more easily than if your vote is competing with folks from all over the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.