Where Does Federal Authority End?
Can you imagine a situation today that cannot be decided upon by the Ferderal government? Is there any topic in which Washington has no say? I cannot think of one. Not one!
It's not suppose to be like this.
The Founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in such a way to bind the powers of the Federal government. There should have been very little for them to do. Why wouldn't there be much for them to do? Because the United States didn't need a centralized government because the United States wasn't a democracy. The Founders wanted to avoid a democracy because, while the socialist dream on paper, history told them that it quickly degraded into a tryanny - an enemy of the people. But they reconized that some form of centralized government was needed. And the preamble in the Consitution spells out what need it was to fill:
In essence all we're talking about here is defending the country as a whole and ensuring the liberties and rights, as described in the Bill of Rights, of all citizens remain intact. That's about it. Not too comlicated and not too impressive when you think about it. Washington was to have very little power and most authority was to remain with individual states. And up to this time they acted as soverign nations themselves and were not too keen about giving up this power to a centralized government. These states would have balked at the status of state/federal relations we have today. The Congress or Supreme Court can overtun any state law! No one would have signed the Constitution if they knew it would lead to this. Not one.
People seem to forget that the United States is a union. A series of individual smaller nations united for mutual protection. Do you think 200 years ago Maine gave a rip what Delaware thought about anything? No. So why then should Maine be forced to legalize something it's citizens do not want simply because Delaware has? Who is Washington D.C. to tell Virginia what to do with her citizens?
Please, tell me, if you can, are there any issues you can think of where Washington D.C. cannot trump local state law? And then tell me if this is what the signatories of the Constitution signed on for.
This thought was brought on by this paragraph in this article:
It's not suppose to be like this.
The Founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in such a way to bind the powers of the Federal government. There should have been very little for them to do. Why wouldn't there be much for them to do? Because the United States didn't need a centralized government because the United States wasn't a democracy. The Founders wanted to avoid a democracy because, while the socialist dream on paper, history told them that it quickly degraded into a tryanny - an enemy of the people. But they reconized that some form of centralized government was needed. And the preamble in the Consitution spells out what need it was to fill:
...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...
In essence all we're talking about here is defending the country as a whole and ensuring the liberties and rights, as described in the Bill of Rights, of all citizens remain intact. That's about it. Not too comlicated and not too impressive when you think about it. Washington was to have very little power and most authority was to remain with individual states. And up to this time they acted as soverign nations themselves and were not too keen about giving up this power to a centralized government. These states would have balked at the status of state/federal relations we have today. The Congress or Supreme Court can overtun any state law! No one would have signed the Constitution if they knew it would lead to this. Not one.
People seem to forget that the United States is a union. A series of individual smaller nations united for mutual protection. Do you think 200 years ago Maine gave a rip what Delaware thought about anything? No. So why then should Maine be forced to legalize something it's citizens do not want simply because Delaware has? Who is Washington D.C. to tell Virginia what to do with her citizens?
Please, tell me, if you can, are there any issues you can think of where Washington D.C. cannot trump local state law? And then tell me if this is what the signatories of the Constitution signed on for.
This thought was brought on by this paragraph in this article:
Were America still a republic, liberty would be guaranteed regardless of whom is elected on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November: the shifty-eyed Ewok (Bush) or the Wizard of Oz Scarecrow (Kerry). In democratic America, however, either of these demiurges will enjoy almost unlimited power. Marriage, marijuana, Microsoft, you name it – there is hardly an aspect of life from which these meddlers are barred. All are subject to the whims of the national majority, or, rather, of its ostensible representatives.
Posted by Kevin D. on
Friday July 29, 2005 at 6:02am
