States Rights - The Common Citizen
While the previous post dealt more with the idea of States' Rights on the level of the Constitution, the Founders, and the more intricate levels of government in general, this post aims to focus the attention on why the states and not the federal government should have more authority in our daily lives.
Simply put, if one lives in Montana, it is easier to think that the mayor and city officials of Huntley (this is just as an example) knows more about, and honestly cares more about the people there than the county of Yellowstone. Yellowstone County, in turn, knows more about, and honestly cares more about the people of Huntley than the capital city of Helena does. Helena knows more about, and honestly cares more about the people of Huntley than those folks in Washington, D.C. Those folks in Washington, D.C. know more about, and honestly cares more about the people in Huntley than the types sitting in the U.N.
Why might this be so? Local control is the answer and very key in everything we do. When you literally drive to someone's house, or wait in the lobby at the Town Hall, your voice means much more than if you are only another number is a large and easily forgotten, ignored, or otherwise lost in a sea of people, ideas, and voices. While I do not doubt that many people in Washington, D.C. do want the best for this nation, the town of Huntley, Montana really means nothing in the overall scheme, but is sure means a lot to the county officials of Yellowstone, and obviously to the people who run that very town as well. And it is in THAT very order mentioned that power and authority should come about. It needs to be local authority and up, not federal authority and down.
This also permits a level of 'experimentation' otherwise impossible. While I personally find the ideas of many people living in California (for example) quite daft, it is always better to be able to prove it is daft by the results of actual attempts than to sit around and 'prove' it daft by arguing hypotheticals.
If a city, or in fact an entire state wish to try something different, then this model gives them the most flexibility and grants them the most autonomy one can find. It is why cases like Reynolds v. Sims and so many others are completely beyond understanding of a Supreme Court who wishes to centralize power and concentrate it in the hands of the few. If Alabama wants to make up how its state Congress is formed and assembled, then why does anyone from New York need to chime in and tell them that they cannot?
Before Roe v. Wade, the states decided the issue of abortion as they saw fit and the more liberal states could do their thing and the more conservative states could do as they pleased as well. This made for no surprises, and at the same time if you did not approve of this, or other situations in the state (one way or the other) you could do two things: Convince people to change the laws by rational argument, or simply move to a state that suited your tastes better. But then came along amysterious usurper of a third option called substantive due process, and what havoc on the states has it wrought.
Centralization of power is always the goal of despots and tyrants, and as a nation we must be weary of those who desire to bleed the authority of the states dry and put the control into the hands of the few.
Simply put, if one lives in Montana, it is easier to think that the mayor and city officials of Huntley (this is just as an example) knows more about, and honestly cares more about the people there than the county of Yellowstone. Yellowstone County, in turn, knows more about, and honestly cares more about the people of Huntley than the capital city of Helena does. Helena knows more about, and honestly cares more about the people of Huntley than those folks in Washington, D.C. Those folks in Washington, D.C. know more about, and honestly cares more about the people in Huntley than the types sitting in the U.N.
Why might this be so? Local control is the answer and very key in everything we do. When you literally drive to someone's house, or wait in the lobby at the Town Hall, your voice means much more than if you are only another number is a large and easily forgotten, ignored, or otherwise lost in a sea of people, ideas, and voices. While I do not doubt that many people in Washington, D.C. do want the best for this nation, the town of Huntley, Montana really means nothing in the overall scheme, but is sure means a lot to the county officials of Yellowstone, and obviously to the people who run that very town as well. And it is in THAT very order mentioned that power and authority should come about. It needs to be local authority and up, not federal authority and down.
This also permits a level of 'experimentation' otherwise impossible. While I personally find the ideas of many people living in California (for example) quite daft, it is always better to be able to prove it is daft by the results of actual attempts than to sit around and 'prove' it daft by arguing hypotheticals.
If a city, or in fact an entire state wish to try something different, then this model gives them the most flexibility and grants them the most autonomy one can find. It is why cases like Reynolds v. Sims and so many others are completely beyond understanding of a Supreme Court who wishes to centralize power and concentrate it in the hands of the few. If Alabama wants to make up how its state Congress is formed and assembled, then why does anyone from New York need to chime in and tell them that they cannot?
Before Roe v. Wade, the states decided the issue of abortion as they saw fit and the more liberal states could do their thing and the more conservative states could do as they pleased as well. This made for no surprises, and at the same time if you did not approve of this, or other situations in the state (one way or the other) you could do two things: Convince people to change the laws by rational argument, or simply move to a state that suited your tastes better. But then came along amysterious usurper of a third option called substantive due process, and what havoc on the states has it wrought.
Centralization of power is always the goal of despots and tyrants, and as a nation we must be weary of those who desire to bleed the authority of the states dry and put the control into the hands of the few.
posted by Edward W. Prather at 23:29
<< Home