We have been writing about the solution to all the liberal whining about the government just being too big for Obama to control…We can fix this for President Passerby.
I just engaged in this exchange on FaceBook:
Michael Smith We already have them…they are called “governors”. This is one of the reasons that the Founders designed the Constitution and the enumerated powers the way they did.
Federalism gets everybody what they want without secession. This idiotic attempt to govern a country of 312,000,000 people with a inefficient, ineffective and unresponsive central government run from Washington is the idea that is unworkable and is the problem, the Constitution is the solution…
What do you say we give true federalism a whirl?
You know federalism, it’s established by that dusty old document that you think stops America from becoming a collectivist nirvana (the Constitution); it is what all those papers were written about in the late 1700’s by those old, white, Christian men.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines federalism as:
Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal principles for dividing powers between member units and common institutions. Unlike in a unitary state, sovereignty in federal political orders is non-centralized, often constitutionally, between at least two levels so that units at each level have final authority and can be self-governing in some issue area. Citizens thus have political obligations to, or have their rights secured by, two authorities. The division of power between the member unit and center may vary, typically the center has powers regarding defense and foreign policy, but member units may also have international roles. The decision-making bodies of member units may also participate in central decision-making bodies. Much recent philosophical attention is spurred by renewed political interest in federalism, coupled with empirical findings concerning the requisite and legitimate basis for stability and trust among citizens in federal political orders. Philosophical contributions have addressed the dilemmas and opportunities facing Canada, Australia, Europe, Russia, Iraq, Nepal and Nigeria, to mention just a few areas where federal arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to accommodate differences among populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a common, often democratic, political order.
So what do you say that we work the original plan and throttle the national government back to its enumerated powers, put the Commerce Clause genie back in the bottle, reduce the power of the Congress, SCOTUS and the Executive to matters of true national import like defense, protection of our borders, a common currency and interstate highways and utilities? We then restore the power of the states and allow them to decide just exactly what their people want them to be…MassCare – totally cool – if that’s what Massachusetts folk want. Vermont wants to go full-on Marxist, there you go. New Hampshire votes for pure capitalism, OK by me. New Yorkers want state funded abortion on demand – killer idea (pun intended), if that’s what all the feminists want. Mississippi wants the Christian faith taught in schools – hallelujah! The people of Texas want every citizen to carry a side-arm, no problem. California wants a 75% tax on the “rich” and Utah wants to abolish taxes altogether? I smell a referendum coming.
What do you say?
Look at anything we have written on distributed government or Joe’s fantastic series of posts on secession – there is a very easy answer to the issues we are facing at the federal level and it isn’t to add more bureaucratic layers.