Skip to comments.Why Federal Government Trumps the States
Posted on 09/24/2011 7:11:32 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
It sounds quaint. But giving Washington less control over our affairs, and the states more control, is a bad idea.
Here's why: People move.
Anybody who has relocated from one state to another knows there's a huge hassle factor associated with simply adapting to a different set of rules.
There's also the dubious proposition that states manage their business better than the federal government. It's true that nearly all states are required to balance their budgets, which creates a degree of spending discipline. But that's hardly the same thing as responsible government.
It's worth keeping in mind that the national press corps is centered in Washington and New York, and for all its flaws, there are still hundreds of dogged journalists eager to ferret out wrongdoing and pounce on scandalous behavior.
In state capitals, by contrast, there's far less oversight and a thin press corps that can't possibly keep tabs on every shady deal.
Yeah, there are a lot of problems with the federal government. But 50 different sets of rules isn't one of them.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Memo to Rick Newman: There would be no Federal Government without the States. =.=
It's true that nearly all states are required to balance their budgets, which creates a degree of spending discipline. But that's hardly the same thing as responsible government.Luckily for the author, there's no such thing as responsible journalism.
I disagree. You are CRIMINALLY, criminally I say, insulting all the innocent morons out there who have never done anything to you. :)
The author is much worse. He is an intelligent man who applies his intelligence to the advancement of evil.
I’m tired of giving the “progressives” a pass on their moral leprosy.
>Federalists have been around since the Constitution became the law of the land.
I believe that some of these clowns would actually like re attach the country to England or something.<
Yup. These liberal clowns want us to be subjects and slaves instead of citizens. That’s why they love communism and commie leaders, and the more reason why I lean towards a quaint revolution so we could start all over again.
“The author is a moron.
There I said it!”
Yup, ya sed it. Ya done good.
I think the little Commie Statist knows exactly what he is doing. Evil isn’t always stupid. He is evil.
Is this another blog post? Who is US News and World Report?
I think it is a “pamphlet” of some kind. I’ve seen one in the dentist waiting room before. Curious things.
Calling Rick Newman a moron is too much of a compliment.
Mr. Newman (and I use the title only b/c of convention), one year I twice moved from one state to another. If the small inconvenience causes you to give up liberty, the right of free speech is wasted on you.
“It’s worth keeping in mind that the national press corps is centered in Washington and New York, and for all its flaws, there are still hundreds of dogged journalists eager to ferret out wrongdoing and pounce on scandalous behavior.”
Sure they are- as long as its the Republicans. When its the Democrats, they look the other way....
You got it, brother!
And all of those moving peasants are too stupid to figure things out and take care of themselves.
According the author’s moronic logic we should also ban private companies: Everyone should work for one big company so when we move no one has to learn new rules.
Liberals are the most feeble minded idiots, everything is hard to them.
This truly is the sad, sad result of the current educational system in this country that is infested with the cancer or collectivism in all it's hideous forms.
Fifty years ago we still had a government that had not yet almost totally wiped out states rights.
In that era a trip around the United States was a much different experience than is the case today. The same can be said about moving from one state to another.
Each state or region provided a different and unique experience.
There were enough differences to give you a feeling for the cultural uniqueness of each region, yet just enough similarity so you knew you were still in the good old USA.
Now the country and our culture has been McDonaldized by the federal government to the point where most differences have been eliminated. And each year they pass more laws and regulations to whittle away at the few unique characteristics that remain.
Soon all that we will have left to distinguish one place from another will be the physical geography: the mountains, swamps, seashores and deserts. The Nanny State federal government will have transformed every other aspect of our culture and society into compliance with the federally approved model.
Seems like the author would favor replacing the states with provinces.
“If the laws are bad, then people move out. For example, if a state wants to form its own little socialist republic, then the workers and companies flee while the moochers pile in.”
YOU NAILED IT!!! If people don’t like the way their state is run, they can move almost hassle-free to another state (and this lady is a jerk for saying that filling out new tax forms and registering cars at DMV is huge hassle).
What she might have talked about is what it would take for any of us (without family connections) to move and become a citizen of Canada, or even Mexico, for that matter. That’s the ONLY WAY to deal with an out of control federal government (such as one that illegally trashes No Child’s Left Behind)...short of succession or revolution.
It's a racket.
His demographic argument was correct, from 1945 to about 1990, in which America’s population experienced its second major demographic movement.
The first major movement was after WWI, when vast numbers of people moved from rural areas to the coasts. Then after WWII, the second movement began, from the old coastal cities, to the new cities of the West. This was greatly assisted by the creation of the Interstate Highway System.
But this grand demographic change is settling down. As is the need for any federal “normalization” and “standardization” between States.
This is why, more and more, States are beginning to reject unconstitutional federal impositions onto their authority. Under the loose umbrella of the “10th Amendment movement” are a whole slew of arguments for a return to State authority from federal usurpation.
This began with the people, in an almost subconscious level. While most do consider themselves “patriotic”, this extends only to the existence of their nation as a whole, *not* to what their federal government does.
Until the Civil War, Americans identified themselves as citizens of their individual States. After WWI, their individual States were where they were “from”, the assumption being that they had left one State for another. Then after WWII, these State associations became tenuous indeed. Yet even then, especially when traveling abroad, most Americans were loathe to even call themselves “American”.
It was too broad a thing to say, with too many assumptions and associations. Too much baggage. Some tried calling themselves “hyphenated-Americans”, like “Italian-American” or “Mexican-American”, but that is terribly unsatisfying.
But today, with an increasingly *less* transitory population, again the appeal of Statehood returns. People are increasingly comfortable with associating themselves with an individual, and unique, State. A State with its own sights, culture, ethnic mix, and most especially *laws* that the people of that State want.
Not federal laws attempting to become redundant with State laws, so that the federals can “horn in” to any situation that catches their attention. But laws just for that State, tailored by its representatives to what the *citizens* of that State want.
Justice Thomas recently wrote a brilliant concurring opinion to the McDonald v. Chicago gun control case, which was intellectually both near and dear to his heart, and a passionate defense of the “privileges or immunity clause” of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment. Some of the most brilliant jurisprudence (judicial philosophy) written in over 50 years.
In it, he created an airtight thesis defending the authority of the federal government to protect and defend the civil rights of Americans, when States attempted to limit those civil rights, in this case, 2nd Amendment rights. But in doing so, he also created a doctrine of a strict limitation of federal authority to interfere *except* under those circumstances.
If Tea Party and conservative Republicans run with this idea, it could mean the end of the horrific federal abuses of the “general welfare” and “interstate commerce clause” abuses, that the federal government has run roughshod with since the 1940’s.
And this would mean drastically reducing and even eliminating much of the federal overreach—now more than half the federal government, thus returning the federal government to constitutionality, and elevating the status of the State governments to far more powerful and representational bodies.
In doing so, the public and business will be freed up to transcend the giant wall of federal limitations, barriers, and crippling handicaps placed on them.
I suppose if a national government is better than individual state governments, then a world government must be better than several different national governments.
Think of how convenient that would be. We could all live by the same simple rules (set by our masters of course) no matter where we lived. Sharia law for all. How much more simple could that be?
Nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide.
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.