Small Government Always
Simply put, the Constitution of the united States spells out the obligations of the Federal Government while reserving everything else to the States or the People respectively.
The most important part of this consideration might be 'why' some things are assigned to the Federal Government (FG). Why is always a dangerous question because you can quote people to justify your rationale no matter who they might be and no matter how much validity they had. Because of that, in this case I will try to limit it my personal observations and let the chips fall where they may.
The FG, in order to function at all, needed a solid method of checks and balances in order to try to avoid all those things we learned about in school -- namely the usurpation of power from the States and the People, respectively.
So one group made laws, another enforced, and a third made sure both were paying attention to everything that needed attention paid. Very nice, but the model can be transferred to the state level, so that still does not answer why something are done at the federal level.
The United States Constitution (USC) describes what the FG should do because certain things were determined to be in the interest of all the states, but experience (Articles of Confederation) showed that these aspects might be addressed correctly, promptly, or with proper funds.
Things like roads (namely to move troops), a postal service (because there was no private, reputable firm to do this), handling of foreign affairs in a nice uniform way, and of course providing a military are all things that, if left to one state or another might not happen.
How many other things MUST the FG do for the entire citizenry of the United States? This can be left to debate, but the Constitution dies say, in Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
It would seem obvious that most everything that might become law should be left to the States -- or not made into law at all.
Over the course of time technologies and philosophies have come into play that have lead to the need of more laws here and there, though not to the extent we now see.
The largest problem with the whole FG is how can I trust someone on Washington D.C. to think about what might be best for me, my town, my interests? Let's take this to the next level, how can you really think that the people in your state's capital are thinking at all about you as opposed to anything else?
At least on the most local level you have office holders who live in your town (or area at least), you could walk up to their door, talk to them personally and actually get a feel for who they are and what they represent. You do not need to depend on their PR, website, and the media. Even if you do not see eye-to-eye on all, or even most issues, you can at least trust that they won't sell your town, house, job, schools, nor family down the river for the sake of a deal.
This isn't always the case, but where do you think the ideal is realized the easiest?
We now stand at about 630000 people per representative in the House, according to the Population Reference Bureau, and that hardly seems to be close to the ideal. The idea that almost two-thirds of a million people are 'represented' by one person is a farce. And it is because of this farce that we should, as a nation, want more localized control of so many issues and laws.
Taking this one more step: If you don't think those people in D.C. care for you, how about the people at The Hague? The more distance between you and potential leadership the worse the results.
The most important part of this consideration might be 'why' some things are assigned to the Federal Government (FG). Why is always a dangerous question because you can quote people to justify your rationale no matter who they might be and no matter how much validity they had. Because of that, in this case I will try to limit it my personal observations and let the chips fall where they may.
The FG, in order to function at all, needed a solid method of checks and balances in order to try to avoid all those things we learned about in school -- namely the usurpation of power from the States and the People, respectively.
So one group made laws, another enforced, and a third made sure both were paying attention to everything that needed attention paid. Very nice, but the model can be transferred to the state level, so that still does not answer why something are done at the federal level.
The United States Constitution (USC) describes what the FG should do because certain things were determined to be in the interest of all the states, but experience (Articles of Confederation) showed that these aspects might be addressed correctly, promptly, or with proper funds.
Things like roads (namely to move troops), a postal service (because there was no private, reputable firm to do this), handling of foreign affairs in a nice uniform way, and of course providing a military are all things that, if left to one state or another might not happen.
How many other things MUST the FG do for the entire citizenry of the United States? This can be left to debate, but the Constitution dies say, in Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
It would seem obvious that most everything that might become law should be left to the States -- or not made into law at all.
Over the course of time technologies and philosophies have come into play that have lead to the need of more laws here and there, though not to the extent we now see.
The largest problem with the whole FG is how can I trust someone on Washington D.C. to think about what might be best for me, my town, my interests? Let's take this to the next level, how can you really think that the people in your state's capital are thinking at all about you as opposed to anything else?
At least on the most local level you have office holders who live in your town (or area at least), you could walk up to their door, talk to them personally and actually get a feel for who they are and what they represent. You do not need to depend on their PR, website, and the media. Even if you do not see eye-to-eye on all, or even most issues, you can at least trust that they won't sell your town, house, job, schools, nor family down the river for the sake of a deal.
This isn't always the case, but where do you think the ideal is realized the easiest?
We now stand at about 630000 people per representative in the House, according to the Population Reference Bureau, and that hardly seems to be close to the ideal. The idea that almost two-thirds of a million people are 'represented' by one person is a farce. And it is because of this farce that we should, as a nation, want more localized control of so many issues and laws.
Taking this one more step: If you don't think those people in D.C. care for you, how about the people at The Hague? The more distance between you and potential leadership the worse the results.
posted by Edward W. Prather at 10:57
<< Home