Topic: Constitutional Issues
A Statist View of the Constitution In response to a questionby Logical Premise
(statist)
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
On an article I wrote recently, someone asked the question "How do statists view the Constitution?" I think this is an excellent question to tackle.
First, however, a disclaimer. Read at the risk of being offended. If you don't like the views I state, and wish to respond, please do so in a reasoned manner. If you disagree with me strongly and think I am misguided, then a rational response such as "You are wrong because of X, Y, and Z" looks much better and can be responded to better than "You are wrong and a communist and I hope you die in a fire".
That being said...
A statist has certain central axioms of belief. I've referred to these in other columns before. Basically they revolve around the idea that the people cannot be trusted, that centralized power can do more than individuals each seeking only to help themselves, and that human dynamics (mob theory, group theory) is reality and can't be ignored simply because you wish things were different.
In this light, the Constitution is seen mainly as a framework, somewhat like building a house. It was laid out to describe the basis and operational constraints of a federal government. It was also intended, very clearly, to be changable and flexible over time, or the Founders would not have included language and proceedures on how to change it.
The fact that it is a fluid document and was DESIGNED as a fluid document indicates that nothing within the document is an absolute. Much like archtectural plans, there is the concept in the Statist mindset that the Constitution sets the BASELINE and the growth of the government thereof must match realistic needs.
Strict constitutionalism irritates statists for two reasons. One, clearly the founders intended limited government. We have never denied that. They ALSO clearly intended that power be limited to fairly well off, white landowners. Limited government controlled mostly by a limited subclass was the norm back then. I don't blame the founders for framing things that way. Governments back then were all tyrannies founded on the ridiculous idea that a single "noble" family somehow had a mandate from God to do whatever they liked, and a Parlament who would take away rights whenever they felt like.
The goal of that first document , thus, was to make a new form of government that did not allow for such abuses. The Constitution suceeds in this. I think, as a statist, I have no problems with such pro forma, intellectualized limits. The government should not have the right to tell you what you can or cannot say, or what the press can or cannot report on. It shouldn't tell you that you can't own a gun or that you have no right to a trial by jury. NO statist will ever suggest that the government should have supreme power.
Rather, we suggest the government should have power it needs. If you want to believe that I'm a sub-human because I'm black and shout it on the street corners, you have every right to do that. You do NOT have the right to print that up in a book and have it inserted into the school curricula simply becuase you believe it -- the government CAN regulate what you say in that regard for the public good. You should be able to own a gun -- any gun you like, really. But to suggest the government has no right to know who owns it, to make you register it, to require you to prove you know how to shoot before letting you pack it around in public -- these are for the public good, again.
Statists think government expansion for the public good is always better than limited government that only is good for limited numbers of people, and using the Constitution to subvert that on the basis of "what the founders intended" is , well, inane.
The second and more important reason Statists dislike strict interpretation is that the world has changed immensely since the Constitution was written. You could argue that, up until the American Revolution, the English had the "freeist" society in the world. After the Revolution, America did. That does not mean that the Consitution is the perfect document that can never be improved. Trying to interpret modern complexity through the lens of a document over 200 years old is far beyond merely stubborn into the realm of insanity. You simply CANNOT DO IT.
Thus, Statists believe the Constitution should be a guideline for the expansion of government. Anything that the Constitution does not disallow that is for the public good, the government can and should be involved in. Statists typically do not view the Constitution as a compact, or a binding agreement, since it has been altered signifigantly by amendments. Because, let's be honest. The original founders would NEVER have EVER agreed with the concept that a black man or a woman would run for President. Suggesting that we must stick to the "original intent" of the Constitution and it's wording is implying that
We know what that intent was -- doubtful
That the original intent matches what a majority of the country wants -- again, doubtful
That the reason we are going with the original intent is for the good of the majority of the population - dubious at best, considering history
That the original intent is even valid any more -- extremely doubtful. How do you apply free speech rules to cyberspace?
We look at the bill of rights as a set of declared "offlimits" areas to government expansion. However, some pieces are so vaguely written as to invite hair pulling. The 10th Amendment should be struck and rewritten so that "the Federal Government cannot usurp the powers so delegated to the States". Granting "powers" to the people without a framework for their usage is merely airy language.
All in all, a Statist does not "revere" the Constitution anymore than one reveres a nice set of blueprints or a detailed set of plans. The founders and writers were all intellegent, honest men who put together an outstanding document that was ahead of it's times in fairness and openness. But when the needs of reality and society clash with the elegant design, the design must give way. Limiting the power of the government will not make things better. It might allow some people to pay less taxes , or not have to bother not polluting the environment, or not bother with helping other countries and then wondering why we get dragged into WW III through such isolationist activity. But it won't help the Average American. The average American was not helped by strict adhereance but by amendments, not by limited government but by government expansion. It was government expansion that helped us get through the Great Depression which was brought on by lassiez faire, free market, unregulated policies. It was the government who brought an end to civil rights abuses after blacks had been lynched for years and had dogs set on them. It was the government who stopped the huckster medicines of snake oil salesmen, the government who protected our environment and state parks, the government who put together public works prorams and Social Security without which millions would have died in poverty or had to sell all they own simply to make ends meet.
To suggest that the Constitution's "original intent" is somehow more important than the reality of what people need is to suggest that, really, the PEOPLE don't matter, only the desires of those who don't like government.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 15 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Logical Premise only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Logical Premise is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-01-30 10:19:37
Logical, it appears to me that you don't understand some basic premises on which the founders formed our government. First and foremost is that our rights are not "given" to us by government. We The People gave certain enumerated power to government, thus many of the powers now claimed by our central government go beyond the powers delegated to it.
Secondly, what the founders were implementing is the principle of SUBSIDIARITY, which basically means that governement functions should be carried out at the lowest possible level, so that the people have better opportunity to remove stupidities, such as the ones mandated in our schools, for example. Speaking of schools, did you know that in school lunch programs, ketchup is classified as a "vegetable".
A huge central government implements functions through huge inefficient bureaucracies, in which the participants have no incentive to solve any "problem" they were organized to solve. To do that would eliminate their reason for existence, so they create an industry out of it instead. Look at any deoartment of the feds and tell me I'm wrong. Overly strong central governements eventually lead to the Caesars,, hitlers and Stalins of the world.
"Statists believe the Constitution should be a guideline for the expansion of government"
Jeffersonian (you know, author of the first draft) liberal philosophy has it that the constitution should be a guideline for the limitation of centralized government. Strict adherence assures this limitation. Government expansion generally occurs at the expense of individual liberty. The founders were aware of this, and attempted to keep this potential abuse of power in check. To construe their efforts to have resulted in a guideline for the unlimited expansion of government (I respectfully submit) requires convoluted reasoning.
In addition, your analysis of factors which contributed to the cause of the "Great Depression" is woefully inadequate in its simplicity, and provides a hint of evidence to the overall instability of your philosophical foundation.
You get a thumb up for me simply for beginning an important conversation regarding the Constitution and how others view it. Throughout your article I couldn't help but shake my head due to the misunderstandings of what a strict constitutionalist really means for many of us who consider ourselves as such. The article is well threaded with the single most used argument against the idea of returning to the intent of the Constitution. In a nutshell it usually sounds more like, "Yeah, and return to slavery while forgetting about changes from then until now," although this isn't how it was stated in your article.
You wrote, "The fact that it is a fluid document and was DESIGNED as a fluid document indicates that nothing within the document is an absolute. Much like architectural plans, there is the concept in the Statist mindset that the Constitution sets the BASELINE and the growth of the government thereof must match realistic needs." I'm in full agreement with this. A return to the intent of the Constitution should not be interpreted to mean I want to strip out all changes and never allow it to be altered as if it were some divine, finite word.
The founders launched an unprecedented experiment; it seems we agree on that. The Constitution was made to be a living document with the focus on changes being made as the people became wiser about how to work within the experiment and to allow for changes necessary due to changing times.
You reference several times the majority of the population. One aspect of the Constitution was to protect the minorities from majorities through a carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Though the founders knew this produced a less efficient form of government the belief was it would provide protection for all against tyranny. A key change made that weakened this protection was the 17th Amendment. It represents a change to the Constitution that has been detrimental rather than beneficial from my viewpoint.
Note I as a strict Constitutionalist don't mind changing the document as we learn to improve our government and as times change. Some of the changes created over the past 220 years have been good while others have been extremely bad. It doesn't matter, if the changes have been ratified they are now a part of the document and people who don't like them must work to repeal them within the system designed for making changes.
I vehemently oppose usurpation and alterations in the government which are not properly vetted through the amending process. For example; I believe the Democratic and Republican Parties have usurped power from the people within the legislative body by creating organizational position not provided for in the Constitution. I believe if these positions are ones the two parties believe they must have to operate then the Constitution should be amended and, if ratified, then and only then should they be filled. Yet, no such amending process has been performed and the positions are now locked deep in history and tradition. This type of usurpation annoys me as a strict constitutionalist. I believe the people have a right to demand an end to this until an organizational change is properly amended to the founding document.
I don't approve of the way the 14th is worded, nor do I like the outcomes of the 16th and 17th Amendments (to name a few). However, since they were ratified my recourse can only be through the change process, I cannot simply say we must return to only the original document and still be able to say I'm a constitutionalist at all, in my opinion.
It appears as a Statist you would have sided with Alexander Hamilton and those pressing for a more nationalist, centralized government. When you mention how many wonderful things the government has done I would tend to see some good and some bad in it. However, being a strict constitutionalist, I believe in less power at the Federal level and more power in States and local government. If these helpful areas are to be properly managed the lowest level of government should manage them rather than the highest. I don't believe in strong nationalist government with little or no State rights. I lean toward a Lockean or Jeffersonian approach rather than a Hamiltonian approach.
Also, I strongly oppose the shift toward making this country a democracy. The election schemes created by the Constitution were complex on purpose. As I mentioned earlier it was for the sake of protecting minorities from majorities, especially when the 'majority' really isn't. What I mean by that is when the strength of a single party controls the fate of the entire nation while representing a less than 50% figure. In 2006 we saw voting that actually won with a 'majority of the vote' while representing a mere 14% of the population.
A final note (I didn't mean to write a book, sorry) on the statement the world has grown more complex. This is true yet that doesn't mean all ideas of the founders are now out dated or archaic. Jefferson's foreign policy approach, as an example, of non-intervention can be as effective today as it was when he developed it. On the flip side the weakness of the original document when it comes to our monetary system is something that needs to be seriously addressed and properly amended so we can eliminate the poorly conceived Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and end the destructive nature of our system today.
Excellent article. Clear and thought out. My disagreement with Statists is for almost the exact reason that you give as a reason for Statism. People cannot be trusted. If governemnt is made up of people, then governement cannot be trusted either. The greater the power, the greater chance for abuse of power. The ability to weild that power should be limited on a regular basis and expanded only temporarily in extraordinary circumstances.
Otherwise, with a central authority embodying great power the danger exists that the direction of ideas can be directed in ways that are not wise, with little or no recourse to change. Like a large truck that cannot turn or stop to avoid an accident when a small car could easily manage it. The driver of the truck hold much less of the risk in such an accident than the driver of a mid-sized sedan.
Basically government should be a guiding body, not a dictating body. Centralized government leads to abuses in a range of power that most people outside of a small group of elite cannot approach. My ability to effectively lobby my government is grossly outclassed by a corporation or individual with the disposable income and free time to travel to the halls of power and really broker their views. Those views will be selfish and benefit a small group of people, by and large, and will not nescessarily reflect ideas that are good for the country as a whole.
Hence my desire for decentralized, local government. Because people are people. That hasn't changed since the Constitution was written and I think our forefathers were quite aware of that. Judging by their writings that can still be used to reflect accurately the problems affecting our current institutions, I think it's safe to say that the world may have changed, but the social dynamics of humans have not.
Alexander Hamilton was my hero, Gary. There are quite a few reasons why, mostly personal.
I don't claim that statism is right, or has all the answers. I think it's a very clear fact that we are at this very moment far more STATIST as a nation than anything else -- not that anyone would identify themselves as that, but in a situtation where the liberal/conversative split is fifty-fifty and to hold the center you have to move away from libertarian ideals that would splinter the political parties, statism is the only direction to go. Democrats AND Republicans have pushed us INTO a statist society already.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-01-30 14:16:50
Well written, but not truly accurate. Those that have some knowledge and catch key phrases (Great depression etc) might agree with you.
Now the theory that people are stupid and need to be ruled is Machiavellian or current neo conn thought. The thing I ask is if all people are bad stupid and neeed to be ruled, then what makes the rulers not bad stupid or needing to be ruled themselves?
The Constitution is not a fluid document, it is in fact the LAW OF THE LAND in OUR REPUBLIC. THis document has the ability to be changed thru the amend process.
The idea that the constitution only pertains to the white land owner is ridiculous and racially motivated sensationalism at best.
To say no one knows the Founders intent is absurd to say the least. Read the Federalist papers, Jeffersons autobiography, anything from Payne, John Locke, Madison, Franklin, Adams (both John and Sam). They clearly deliniate their thoughts.
Keep in mind the Madison wrote the Constitution. It took him 8 years of contiuos study of all types of government, their successes and failures. He toiled day and noght trying to figure out how to make the original ideas of the REPUBLIC from 1776 into a working document. Jeffersons original ideas were of LIBERTY for all, regardless of sex color or class. It is in fact the compromise of governance that allowed slavery to remain within the REPUBLIC for another 90 years.
The Depression was caused by bank manipulation, b/c we allowed the government to usurp its responsibility towards to banking. BIG Government allowed the Depression to happen and FDRs social programs dragged it out for a decade with his programs and regulation.
The BOTTOM LINE: In order to have LIBERTY, everyone must have individual responsibility. Those of you willing to give up YOUR RESPONISIBILITY for GOVT DEPENDANCY do it at the peril of all those other RESPONSIBLE people who desire LIBERTY and do not wish anything from their government. GOVT giving you stuff breeds irresponsibility. That IRRESPONSIBILITY has bled over into our government. The more dependant you are on them (the gov) the more they can take away from you or more importantly us LIBERTY loving RESPONSIBLE adults.
"Any government big enough to give you anything you want is also big enough to take everything you have"- Barry Goldwater
Sir, I greatly isagree that we are a statist country, merely moving ever so fast to that end. But we have allowed ourselves to become a Democracy and NOT the REPUBLIC our Founders blessed us with.
"Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what for dinner. LIBERTY is a well armed sheep"- Ben Franklin
You see the Government is not supposed to provide for you. You are supposed to provide for yourself. If you cannot feed yourself with one job, get 2. If your two jobs make you not enough, go to school and learn a new skill. Simple responsibility. Very Darwinistic in nature (the strong survive) Maybe if we had more of this in our country we wouldnt have so much dead weight. Why learn to fish when you give me fish?
Social security is by far the most unconstitutional thing we have going. It goes against the whole spirit of self reliance. Why should I support someone who failed to plan for their own retirement? Should you pay (the State) for my wifes diabetes, knee and hip replacement b/c she cant push away from the dinner table? How about feed someone that wont go to work b/c they have a hard time getting up in the morning to go to work? If you agree with giving your hard earned money freely to others, I will send you my address and you can mail me 1/3 of your paycheck every 2 weeks. Awesome I knew that socialist/communist were good for something.
As for me I want nothing from my govt. I have stood on the fence to support and defend this great REPUBLIC. I work hard and follow the golden rule as well as George Washingtons rules of civility. I wish not to infringe on the LIBERTY of all others, regardless of race age sex or orientation. Just as I want none of those groups to infringe upon mine.
Agreed that ANARCHY (absense of govt) would be ideal, yet the nature of human beings does not always allow it, so a REPUBLIC is as close to perfect as possible. Granted it is not always the perfect fit, so the 10th ammendment allows those issues to be taken care of locally and not by the Central govt.
OBTW Hamilton was not an American he was an aristocrat from Europe here to go to KINGS college, no wonder he tried hard to centralize us.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-01-30 16:44:29
Theories change over time. The rationalizations that spring up around those theories and that are put forth their adherents are boundless. These are widely created by academics with no real world experience and trumpeted by their sycophantical students.
Principles do not change from generation to generation. Treating the Constitution as an outdated instrument proclaims a fundamental lack of comprehension of the principles embodied in it.
Having exposed at least one worthless premise in your article, the rest is a house of cards. Here are two examples of where I disagree, just so you can reference them in your article.
1. You stated some statist beliefs (benefits of big govt, etc. standard statist credo talking points) then proceeded to advance your position on those beliefs as if they were statement of fact. Bogus start, bogus finish, I always say.
2. One statist belief in particular is worth mentioning. You believe a government should have all the power it 'needs.' Yikes. Who gets to decide how much power government needs? Fortunately, the people get to decide in the US...but we're rapidly handing that power over to a handful of elite power brokers in each party.
The only "original intent" that is of interest to me is the intent to uphold principles that have proven their value to the advancement of peace and prosperity for societies that embrace them and have resulted in destruction of 100% of the societies that have abandoned those principles. This pattern of self-defeating empire and the saving grace of principles, for as long as they hold out, has repeated for thousands of years, yet statists refuse to learn. I think that is all anyone needs to know about a statist.
Once one removes the foundation of principles from his world view, he can rationalize anything. This article is a shining example of this simple truth.
Posted By: Christian Prophet
Date: 2008-02-18 10:10:16
"A statist has certain central axioms of belief. I've referred to these in other columns before. Basically they revolve around the idea that the people cannot be trusted, that centralized power can do more than individuals each seeking only to help themselves, and that human dynamics (mob theory, group theory) is reality and can't be ignored simply because you wish things were different."
I don't get it. If people cannot be trusted is your beloved centralized power operated by non-people?
The teacher can be trusted to run the class. The little kids can't. Yeah, I'm conflating most Americans to 5 year olds, but that's insulting to the five year olds and a complement to most adults Americans, who can't find Europe on a map or explain how a radio works, but belive the moon landing was a hoax and the earth is 6000 years old.
I don't want idiots running this country just becuase a bunch of old dead bastards who were busy banging slaves, throwing Indians off their land and basically acting like complete hypocrites, wrote some piece of paper a long time ago and called it Liberty. Liberty is your choices actually having a meaning, and Ron Paul won't give you that any more than praying to your carpet will.
If I can't have that, I'd rather have competant, professional leadership, a government focused on improving the economy and sciences, and health care that' s not socialist and isn't all about making some CEO a gazillionare.
And quite frankly, if you sheeple who think Ron Paul is Jesus and has a chance to win with his 8 delegates, if you think I'm wrong, I don't care in the slightest.
"Yeah, I'm conflating most Americans to 5 year olds, but that's insulting to the five year olds and a complement to most adults Americans, who can't find Europe on a map or explain how a radio works, but belive the moon landing was a hoax and the earth is 6000 years old. "
Basically you are saying most Americans are morons. Sadly you are right about that. And that's why they didn't vote for Ron Paul.
Grab a couple of honest history books, a good book on logic, and come back after you've read them. Then we can talk.
Did it ever occur to you that what you were taught in school was, after all, written for approval by government minions? I have to say you did a pretty good job of regurgitation, so at least you learned your lessons well.
Too bad that one of the lessons they refuse to teach in government school is the process of independent thought.
The "intent" was spelled out at the time The Constitution was written in the Federalist Papers. Ever heard of them?
>That the original intent matches what a majority of the country wants -- again, doubtful
What absurdity. We are a nation of individuals with individual wants and needs. One size fits all...fits nobody, ever. It is the credo of socialists. America was not created nor did it "evolve" into a country that needs such schemes.
>That the reason we are going with the original intent is for the good of the majority of the population - dubious at best, considering history
The constitution was created for a people living in a REPUBLIC that had rights to be recognized and respected by gov't. It was not created for a loathesome "democracy" where the majority can freely push around those unfortunate enough to be disempowered merely by having a lack of numbers.
>That the original intent is even valid any more -- extremely doubtful. How do you apply free speech rules to cyberspace?
The real question shoul be: "Why should anyone want to limit free speech in cyberspace?" Obsessed with controlling the types of subjects he/she doesn't agree with?
It is not only "valid" but absolutely vital to the survival of a free population that government stay out of the way of people and stick to the job of protecting the rights and properties of Americans.
In an America where Libertarians would rule: Statists get to say what they like. They have the same rights as everyone else.
In an America where Statists have the degree of power they are comfortable with: would Libertarians even be able to breathe air without fear of torture, imprisonment, or summary execution simply because they don't tow the state's line?
You had a people recently come to an unexplored, undeveloped, but bountiful land. A handful of recognized leaders rubbed their heads together, created some sparks and wrote a constitution. They were declaring their independence from Britan. They had to put something into the vacuum that independence brings.
It is the duty of government to provide organization for its people's interaction and of its resources, for the best survival of its people.
To achieve this goal, the people need be represented if they can not all be present in person. Law is the central pillar of government, it is created by people's represetitives in a 2 house legislature. And law is subject to change, to self-correction, rather than being mandated by God or by a King or by a Holy Book.
Yet law is not always enough, and it takes weeks or months for law to be created and enacted. Thus an executive branch of government is necessary. It can quickly react to national disaster and can act as governmental representitive as needed.
Finally, a method of implementing, testing and modifying law is necessary. This is the slowest, most conservative branch of government, it is least subject to action and change. Slow and foundational, the Court system serves people to insure government serves their interest. These three branches, together, form United States Government. Its form has been widely copied. This is not to say it is without fault, and it can be corrupted, it does not have a self-policing arm built right into it. Rather each of its branches are required to self-correct themselves. It also lacks a clear foreign policy, in today's world this element has grown more and more important.
“You do NOT have the right to print that up in a book and have it inserted into the school curricula simply becuase you believe it -- the government CAN regulate what you say in that regard for the public good.”
You’re mincing words here. You have the right to write a book. Whether or not that book gets published is up to a publishing company. Whether or not that published book is purchased is up to the consumer. Government interference is not the answer.
“You should be able to own a gun -- any gun you like, really. But to suggest the government has no right to know who owns it, to make you register it, to require you to prove you know how to shoot before letting you pack it around in public -- these are for the public good, again.”
Requiring people to know how to shoot is pretty silly. There’s a trigger and you press it. It’s probably harder for someone to turn on the TV with a remote. But the rest sound reasonable, so long as it’s written. No blood or fingerprints should be required to register a gun.
“Statists think government expansion for the public good is always better than limited government that only is good for limited numbers of people, and using the Constitution to subvert that on the basis of "what the founders intended" is , well, inane.”
The thing is, I see “the public good” as “for the public’s own good”, like banning overweight people from certain restaurants, or banning smoking in private restaurants, instituting unfair curfews, etc. Limited government is good for a majority of people. It should take as little from your paycheck as possible. It should not monitor your phone calls or e-mails. It shouldn’t surveil what you do on the street.
Thus, Statists believe the Constitution should be a guideline for the expansion of government. Anything that the Constitution does not disallow that is for the public good, the government can and should be involved in. Statists typically do not view the Constitution as a compact, or a binding agreement, since it has been altered signifigantly by amendments. Because, let's be honest. The original founders would NEVER have EVER agreed with the concept that a black man or a woman would run for President. Suggesting that we must stick to the "original intent" of the Constitution and it's wording is implying that
1. We know what that intent was -- doubtful
2. That the original intent matches what a majority of the country wants -- again, doubtful
3. That the reason we are going with the original intent is for the good of the majority of the population - dubious at best, considering history
4. That the original intent is even valid any more -- extremely doubtful. How do you apply free speech rules to cyberspace?
First, what are you smoking and why do you want to keep it illegal?
If the Constitution doesn’t disallow something, you should follow proper procedure and have it amended to allow it. Ignoring the Constitution gets us in trouble. Letting the government run out of control, just because the Constitution doesn’t “disallow” it, is the wrong way to go. There is no mention of the Department of Education in the Constitution. By the way, I’m talking about the one at the federal level, not the one in each state. Yet it’s there. It has been for some time. And it costs the taxpayer billions of dollars every year to interfere in the educational system.
“We look at the bill of rights as a set of declared "offlimits" areas to government expansion. However, some pieces are so vaguely written as to invite hair pulling. The 10th Amendment should be struck and rewritten so that "the Federal Government cannot usurp the powers so delegated to the States". Granting "powers" to the people without a framework for their usage is merely airy language.”
The 10th Amendment should stay the way it is. It’s clearly explained. Any powers in the Constitution not delegated to the federal government – or “disallowed” as you said above – are given to the states. Things such as education, drugs, or marriage. Do you see any powers in the Constitution delegated to the states? Maybe you just don’t want states to have any.
“Limiting the power of the government will not make things better. It might allow some people to pay less taxes , or not have to bother not polluting the environment, or not bother with helping other countries and then wondering why we get dragged into WW III through such isolationist activity. But it won't help the Average American. The average American was not helped by strict adhereance but by amendments, not by limited government but by government expansion. It was government expansion that helped us get through the Great Depression which was brought on by lassiez faire, free market, unregulated policies. It was the government who brought an end to civil rights abuses after blacks had been lynched for years and had dogs set on them. It was the government who stopped the huckster medicines of snake oil salesmen, the government who protected our environment and state parks, the government who put together public works prorams and Social Security without which millions would have died in poverty or had to sell all they own simply to make ends meet.”
It would allow many people to pay less taxes. They would also keep more money from their paycheck, however much or little they make. They could save their money as they choose with the market determing the interest rates instead of the Federal Reserve. And they could have currency that’s worth more than the paper it’s printed on.
About the environment, I’m a proponent of property rights. You’re not allowed to pollute your neighbor’s air, water, or land. Currently, not many people stand for it – not elected, anyway. Since it isn’t in the Constitution, I would try to amend it. Power to the property-holders.
“To suggest that the Constitution's "original intent" is somehow more important than the reality of what people need is to suggest that, really, the PEOPLE don't matter, only the desires of those who don't like government.”
It’s not the government’s job to decide what people need, or allocate billions of dollars to a program the bureaucrats on Capitol Hill think is needed, with a gun held against the taxpayer’s head. No, the real solution is that problems should be solved locally. State governments can take care of people’s needs, if that is what they demand of their elected representatives. The federal government can and should stick to its Constitutional responsibilities.
Posted By: Steven A. Rosile
Date: 2009-01-30 01:00:28
The basic idea that you put forth as a statist is that government should be involved in any or all areas for the public good so long as the activity is not directly prohibited by the Constitution.
I beleive the main error in your position is that the Federal, or General, government, rightfully only has those powers delegated to it by the several sovereign states, who, you may recall, it was, through their delegates at the framing convention an the state ratifying conventions, created it. All powers other than those specifically granted the General government were reserved to the states, or the people.
My point here is this, if you want to promote statism, please do not do so at the federal government level, where it clearly does not belong, but at the state government level, where the power and authority to do the things you seem to feel government ought to do, at least legitimately exists.
I personally believe it's time for the several States, or at least 34 of them (Constitutional Super Majority)...who actually created the Federal System to undo their creation. Like the Frakenstein Monster it has become an uncontrolable threat to the very States and peoples who created it. This compact between the States can be undone the same way it was done..by the States. Yes, I said compact. The fact the author denies the fact the Constituion is a compact, is sad comentary of his/her historical knowledge (or public education system, you choose).That which has been created can not be greater than the creator. Or simply put, The States created the Federal Government with pen and paper, and they can just as easily undo that, with pen and paper. For the remaining 16 States, good luck attempting to recreate your Fictional Federal Power, like you did in 1861. This time you won't have the numbers, or for that matter the finances. Who will once again loan you money for your illegal occupation of the Soverign States when the majority has rejected you? Obviously, they won't. Then we can all go about our own seperate directions. Forming new compacts that meet the desires of the people in the Soverign States. Who knows, their may even be a region for Statist. However, without the ability to use the Government Guns to force tribute from the rest of us, I doubt the Statist Society will last very long. See, a very simple soultion for very confusion times. Abolish the compact and thus any authority the Federal Government may assume to have! The simplicty boggles the mind.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
