Ten functions the federal government should cede to the states

Liberty Online ^ | July 25, 1999 | By John Seiler

[dead]

In the original vision of America's founding fathers, the states were to be the crucibles of democracy. Puritan New England, Quaker Pennsylvania, Cavalier Virginia, commercial New York - each state was to be governed, for the most part, by its own laws and customs. The federal government had only a handful of specified, limited powers and responsibilities, such as national defense and coining money.

[dead]

Previously posted here, but that thread is unbumpable, as are all articles posted prior to 9/4/01.

It is certainly worthy of repost.

[Ferris]

The problem with all of the above is that it would result in more power and freedom for the individual, and less power and control for the state...

America is just simply not ready for such freedom...

[FreeTally]

ROTFLMAO!!

Nice dream, right?

[Grit]

Perhaps not in my lifetime...but bump just the same.

[Between the Lines]

It would be a nice start.

[Wolfie]

"It'll never fly, Orville".

[dead]

Geez, you guys are party poopers.

I'll bet you would go to Fenway on opening day, just to tell the perpetually abused Red Sox fans to quit dreaming.

[Wolfie]

Hey, its not that I don't agree, but I think we all know that our Congresscritters aren't ever going to give up this kind of power. On the other hand, as Orville could tell you, it did fly after all.

[dead]

That's the spirit!

I still try to hear hooves on the roof on Christmas Eve.

[Free the USA]

Index Bump

[inquest]

Well, in order for this idea to be successful, we need to have a clear understanding of what the commerce clause does and does not say. I know a lot of the interpretations tend to be over the top, but that's mostly because there doesn't seem to be any place to draw the line, at least not that I've come across that isn't just totally arbitrary. It seems that just about anything can be justified in the name of "facilitating interstate commerce".

[dead]

You're right, it is difficult to decide.

I would always opt for the strictist interpretation, but nobody votes for me.

[FreeTally]

It seems that just about anything can be justified in the name of "facilitating interstate commerce".

A start would be recognizing the "facilitation" part. The commerces clause is used as a basis and an additional excuse for the feds to prohibit all kinds of things. Facilitation and prohibition are two separate concepts. No one has been able to explain how the wording of the clause pernits any type of prohibition.

[inquest]

Well, the primary reason that the Founders themselves gave for writing it was so that the federal government could prohibit tolls on roads throughout the country. This they could presumably do whether the roads were privately owned, or owned by the state governments.

[E Rocc]

The problem with all of the above is that it would result in more power and freedom for the individual, and less power and control for the state...

The bigger problem as far as the statists are concerned is it would diminish the size of their empires from the federal to the state level.

Then of course when the more liberty-oriented states became more prosperous and populous at the expense of those states run by bureaucrats.....

-Eric

[weikel]

I don't agree about transportation the reason is transportation is vital to the military. For many of the others I don't think the states should have them either( government doesn't have any business being involved with welfare, drugs, art etc at ANY level including the states).

[weikel]

And also of course no business with gun control either for anyone but convicted felons.

[WindMinstrel]

next thing you know, you libertine* bastards will be saying it's ok for people to do drugs, read Harry Potter books, or have sex with someone you're not married to. That would be evil.




*libertine men and scarlet women and RAGTIME! Shameless music that'll drag your son, your daughter to the depths of the jungle animal instinct MASSSTERIA!

[dead]

For many of the others I don't think the states should have them either( government doesn't have any business being involved with welfare, drugs, art etc at ANY level including the states).

I agree, but taking the federal government out of the picture gives us 50 shots at finding a state where the majority share our opinion.

[dead]

It's that jazz music that worries me. Brings out savage instincts and lust.