Tag: federalism

What Are Your Fundamental Assumptions?

Post author By David
Post date December 3, 2009
17 Comments on What Are Your Fundamental Assumptions?

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

photo credit: quarksteilchen

In the midst of a recent comment the author revealed a fundamental assumption that he and I don’t share that clearly explains why we have differing views on government:

Federal mandates are about the only power the government has to prevent a race to the bottom. . . THE only way to get some states to do what needs to be done is to simply mandate it. The race to the bottom has got to end.

I should start by saying that federal mandates truly are the only power that government has to prevent a race to the bottom – also that I don’t think such mandates are sufficient to prevent such a race (in other words government is powerless to stop that race). After exploring the assumptions that serve as the foundation for that statement about a race to the bottom I quickly concluded that I could not accept that view of the world for myself.

The view that government must use federal mandates to prevent a race to the bottom seems to be built on the belief of Thomas Hobbes that people are basically selfish and evil. People who act as Hobbes expects will naturally engage in a race to the bottom on any issue. It is possible to believe that states will engage in a race to the bottom while still thinking the people are not basically selfish but to hold that combination of beliefs requires a belief that politics is basically corrupt and that it is mainly those who would engage in a race to the bottom who hold public office.

Tags Elevated, federalism, political philosophy, reactions, thoughts

General

Phony Federalism

photo credit: estherase

Gene Healy wrote about what he called Obama’s phony federalism but what he was really talking about was a relatively universal perspective on federalism:

Not yet a year into his administration, Obama’s record on 10th Amendment issues is already clear: He’ll let the states have their way when their policies please blue team sensibilities and he’ll call in the feds when they don’t. Thus, he’ll grant California a waiver to allow it to raise auto emissions standards, but he’ll bring the hammer down when the state tries to cut payments to unionized health care workers.

. . .

Just a few years back, the Republicans — nominally the party of federalism — were busily wielding federal power to enforce red state values . . . In that odd political climate, you often heard liberals lamenting the decline of states’ rights.

That strange new respect for the 10th Amendment lasted roughly as long as the blue team’s exile from power.

Federalism then, as understood by both major political parties is simply a tool to bash your opponents into conformity and then deflect their power from affecting you when you are on the defensive.

Tags connections, Elevated, federalism, liberty, parties

National State

We Must Be Clear About This

Post author By David
Post date September 25, 2009
7 Comments on We Must Be Clear About This

photo credit: roberthuffstutter

Bob Henline is promoting Electoral Equality today at Non-Partisan. The sentiment is admirable, but there are a couple of things that need to be cleared up before anyone jumps on the bandwagon here. Let’s look at his description of what he is promoting:

For those of you unfamiliar with it, National Popular Vote is an organization that is trying to bring some semblance of equality to American presidential elections. NPV is doing this through legislation at the state level, legislation that would create an interstate compact to award each of the member states’ electoral votes to the candidate that receives the nationwide popular vote majority . . . It’s a long road, but shorter than the other alternative, an amendment to the Constitution.

Thankfully Bob is upfront about the fact that this really should be pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. On the other hand, this movement is technically legal unlike other Constitution skirting movements. So there’s the first problem – they are not pursuing an amendment which would be the proper course.

The second problem is much more problematic and it holds true even if this were pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. The goal of removing the Electoral College or simply rendering it obsolete moves us further along the path that the 17th Amendment set us firmly on, namely the path of fundamentally altering our structure of government from being a republic to being a democracy. I admit that some people would openly pursue that change, but I highly doubt that most people even recognize the difference and thus they are unqualified to decide which form is more advantageous to the nation.

Tags amendments, Constitution, Elevated, federalism

General National

Future Amendment – Restore Federalism

Post author By David
Post date September 15, 2009
2 Comments on Future Amendment – Restore Federalism

The last of the four amendments I would like to see is actually an idea that is not ready for implementation. I would love to see the 17th amendment repealed – just like I would like to see the 16th repealed except that I’m not sure how I would deal with the issues that the amendment was designed to address.

I have previously discussed the problems caused by this amendment which is why I would like to see it repealed and true federalism restored. The two major issues that would have to be addressed if it were repealed are corruption in state legislatures that can arise based on their power to chose senators, and deadlocks within legislatures when attempting to make their choice. As far as deadlock goes, I think that states can learn to deal with deadlocks or suffer the consequences of being underrepresented in the Senate. Where corruption is concerned my best guess is that reducing the power of the Federal government and placing more power back in the hands of states might help to alleviate that problem so that picking senators is not important enough to generate corruption.

Tags amendments, Constitution, federalism, future

General

Constitutional Amendment X

Post author By David
Post date June 3, 2009
3 Comments on Constitutional Amendment X

Up until the last few months, when states have started to assert their rights through such actions as resolutions and the formation of the Patrick Henry Caucus, I am convinced that the Tenth Amendment has long been the most widely ignored of our Bill of Rights amendments.

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.

Few people are even alive today who can remember a time when the Federal Government was not grossly trampling the rights of states. Although such overreaching has been going on to some degree for virtually our entire history it seems that especially since the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments the Federal government has been treating the states as vassals rather than sovereign territories.

Tags Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, federalism, history

culture National

Federalist No. 39

Federalist No. 39 seems to contain the central argument that is being addressed in the debate over ratifying the constitution:

"But it was not sufficient," say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States." And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken?

It seems that it was commonly assumed that the only proper form of government was a republican form. If we had a new constitutional convention today I would not be surprised if many people felt that the proper form of government would rightly be a democratic form. I believe that the reason for this lies in the distinction between a federal government and a national government:

The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. (a national government) Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. (a federal government) In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. (my notes added)

As our government has taken on a more national character (as the local levels of government have become more subordinated to the federal government) it is natural for people to want a more direct say in the actions of that general government and thus the assumption of the desireability of a democratic form of government. I worry about this mindset.

The conclusion is that the government formed by the Constitution is a balance of federal and national in form. The proper solution to our national political ills is not to advance further down the misguided path that the founders were studiously avoiding (a democratic form and a national form) but to return to the solution that they so wisely pursued (the republican form balanced between national and federal in character). We need to teach the body politic the virtues of the republican form of government and the virtues of a balance between federalism and nationalism so that they will demand that their government, which is structured for just that balance, will act as it was designed to act so that their liberty is preserved as it was intended to be.

Tags Constitution, documents, federalism, federalist, history, liberty

National

Federalist No. 23

Federalist No. 23 uses the experience of the Articles of Confederation – specifically the experience related to the arrangement whereby the central government could request men and arms for the defense of the nation but did not have the power to enforce those requests on the citizens of the states – to argue that a stronger central government than that provided by the Articles of Confederation was necessary. That experience should prove the necessity of granting sufficient authority to enforce the edicts of the government relating to those tasks which have been delegated to each level of government.

The tasks listed as belonging properly to the central government are "the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries." In other words

national defense
public peace
interstate commerce
international relations

The principle of having powers sufficient to the duties allotted to each government is illustrated by the following:

Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety? Are fleets and armies and revenues necessary to this purpose? The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. The same must be the case in respect to commerce, and to every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend. Is the administration of justice between the citizens of the same State the proper department of the local governments? These must possess all the authorities which are connected with this object, and with every other that may be allotted to their particular cognizance and direction.

Where the federal government enacts laws that are the province of the state governments, the state governments become unable to perform their proper functions in society. That is a problem that has been growing in our nation for decades. As citizens we must come to a consensus again of what the role of the Federal government is and then insist that our representatives at the federal level do not overstep those bounds. We need to allow that the citizens of other states may make choices that we do not agree with, but so long as those choices are not the responsibility of the Federal Government we should not attempt to use the federal powers to force the views of one state on another. The same principle holds true of using state governments to unduly enforce the desires of one county or city on another in those areas that are the proper responsibility of local governments.

Tags Articles of Confederation, defense, documents, federalism, federalist, history

National

Fixing America’s Woes

I’m not a huge fan of Mark Towner but he caught my attention with THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA’S WOES. My first reaction was “you know what, he’s right.” Further reflection helped me realize that it can never be as simple as voting out those 545 people. For one thing, 75 of those people are not up for reelection in any given cycle (at least 66 Senators and 9 Supreme Court Justices). Second, the justices on the Supreme Court serve for life – as they ought to – so throwing them out is not an option. Third, there is an entire federal court system below the Supreme Court that has a more continuous and immediate effect on the nation than the Supreme Court. I think you would have to count all those other federal judges as well. And fourth, what happens if we simply vote out all those who are up for reelection? We would get lots of new names in the federal government, but no real guarantee of significant change.

That fourth issue is the real sticking point against Mark’s declaration. The solution is hinted at by the work of Newt Gingrich (I’m not a real fan of Newt either) when he talks about the 513,000 elected officials throughout the country. In order to fix the problems we face, what we really need is for the millions of voters to educate themselves on the issues and elect people at all levels of government who will put government back in it’s proper place. The leaders of cities and states should demand that they be free from a federal government which would dictate the minutia of their responsibilities.

Each city and state would be free to find the solutions that best meet the needs of their citizens – which was how our country was designed to function – rather than ceding that responsibility to, or having that responsibility forcibly taken by, an overreaching federal government. We should not expect that every city and every state will look the same or act the same.We cannot expect that every person should be equally at home at any place in this vast country. Instead we should allow our more local governments the freedom to express the culture of their own citizens without fear of offending people who have no interest or connection to their locale.

Maybe we could even learn to practice a little more tolerance by doing this.

Tags citizenship, federalism, government