Ha ha. True, of course. But, I wouldn't say that we "barely" tried it. We tried it in a way that restricted the federal gov't to such a degree that the confederation simply didn't function.
Are you suggesting that each of the 50 states ought to have independent standing armies with sworn allegiance to the state and taking their orders from the state?!
In order for the federal judiciary to decide disputes between the states, the federal gov't must have power over the states. Were it any other way, the states would simply treat federal decisions as advisory, which would violate the cases-and-controversies requirement of the Constitution. Furthermore, there are many other primary functions of the three branches of the federal gov't IF you are defining those functions under the U.S. Constitution, which I assume you are.
The 17th? "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Reps, shall take effect, until an election of Reps shall have intervened." This is the downfall of responsible gov't? Really?
Yes, I remember the portion of the 10th Amendment you are referring to. But, I'm not sure what your point is. The Constitution delegates significant powers to the federal gov't -- both explicit and implied powers. And let's not forget the Supreme Court's valid role in interpreting this document and those powers. And anyways, many state and federal functions are overlapping -- concurrent power is more pervasive than exclusive state or federal power.
Not really. The reasoning behind the policy is fairly analogous to the reasoning underlying CA requiring me to buy car insurance or MA requiring its citizens to obtain health insurance.
And when it comes to questioning the constitutional authority of such actions, to me the difference between the state vs. fed mandating such individual action is simply a difference source of power -- state police powers vs. Congress exercising its Section 8 power to provide for the general Welfare of the U.S.
Is it the best way of providing for the general Welfare and dealing with the issue of access to healthcare? Arguable.
Uhm. So, "THAT" event, which
hasn't happened "IS taxation without representation." hmmm
Well, you know, some ascribe to the idea that goodwill between nations is a good thing -- and besides, the economy is global (even in Texas).
The balance is certainly skewed following two major events in our history: the Civil War and the Great Depression. But, I think it requires a discussion of specific issues before your statement really means much.
Not so much. I mean, yes and no. They went lots of different ways on the issue. Some were highly distrustful of centralized gov't, others not so much, others wanted to provide the office of the President with the powers of a monarch. It was messy.
That's why the Constitution is universally recognized as a compromise. But, I would say that it is generally true that the founders felt that people would be more supportive of their local government, which would be a natural check against the federal gov't.
On the other hand, because the federal gov't is made up of local people, they also believed that the federal gov't would be inclined to look first to the states for support of its national agenda. And I would say this has proven mostly true.
What the founders probably did not anticipate was Congress delegating significant authority to the federal agencies and empowering with law making authority.
I don't share that absolutist ideal. I prefer a system of concurrent powers in which legitimate law-making authority is placed in the legislators of the states and federal gov't respectively, where each informs and is informed by the other, by the other branches, by the citizens, and by judicial decision making. The first test of a law shouldn't be whether or not it originates in my neighborhood. As such, I believe that (gulp) our jurisprudence has gained significantly from other nations.
Moreover, when I think of issues like slavery, Jim Crow laws, racial equality in public schools and the work place, labor conditions, child labor, health and safety issues in the workplace, safety standards in food and medicine, gender issues, issues effecting the disabled, issues of national concern like terrorism, immigration, and voting, etc...... I really think that the Supremacy Clause is fairly necessary.
However, it does get frustrating living in a progressive state when other states and the federal gov't seem to cling to social policies that often seem decades past their prime. Hence, political activism, which is alive and well in the U.S.
1. Well, i grant you that Texans tend to have an over-inflated ego and tend to be a bit paranoid, but that's okay. It is good to have a state like Texas in the union -- they give the rest of the states something to reflect. When I read and hear Texas politics, it just makes me appreciate my state that much more.
2. The most ironic thing is that some of the worst offenders of this came with the last administration -- a bunch of dudes from Texas.
