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.Perhaps the best possible outcome of this sorry election season would be for the Republicans to nominate Trump and then split into two parties, one the old Republican Party, now forever soiled and doomed and the other the Federalist Party, whose principles are simple: The Federal government should do only those things that must be done at a national level and everything else would be left to each state individually.
Under a Federalist government, whole swaths of the national government would be dismantled. Volumes of the Federal Register of laws and regulations would be thrown into paper shredders and forgotten. Any state that wished could enact it's favorite chunks of Federal regulations locally, word-for-word if it wanted.
I think a Federalist Party would appeal across the aisle. If California and Illinois want to go full socialist, why should the people of Nebraska and Alabama stop them? If Oklahoma and Mississippi want traditional marriage, who are the people of Oregon to tell them no?
The divisiveness and bitter partisanship we see today comes from the power we've given to national politics. When the Federal government has its hands in every aspect of our lives, then control of Congress and the White House becomes of paramount importance.
That really hit me today when I glanced through the day's set of linked diatribes on Real Clear Politics. They pick a topic and then post one link pro and one link con. The labels they give the essays are usually pretty blunt.
- Why the Democrats are the spawn of demons
- Why Republicans want to cook and eat blacks after enslaving them
It's emotionally exhausting just to read the titles.
I live in San Diego. Assuming you lived outside of California, wouldn't it be nice if your political opinions were interesting conversation topics instead of critical to most of my life? If you and I had almost no political power over the other, why would we argue? It would be like having a political argument with a Canadian. Intellectually stimulating, perhaps, but with almost no emotional investment.
Anyway, that's the thought for today. National harmony through Federalism!
Wouldn't national harmony like fans at a concert singing together be nice?
Off topic: We saw these guys on their most recent tour. This song, Oceans, was positively electric. I get chills watching this video. Try it in full screen mode.
5 comments:
Our Minnesota Govenor, in a fit of rightous idignation, has fecreed that all non-neccessary travel to North Carolina dur to their unforgivable nee law. He also decreed that no government employee should go there on their own vacations. Because, you know, this is a free country and you are free to do whatever the SJWarriors want you to do. And nothing more.
Wow, bad typing on my phone. Sorry. Non-neccessary goverment travel forbidden.
My question is why is there any non-necessary government travel?
Beats me on the non-necessary travel. As for the banning of relations with North Carolina, all I have to say is this.
I think a Federalist Party would appeal across the aisle. If California and Illinois want to go full socialist, why should the people of Nebraska and Alabama stop them? If Oklahoma and Mississippi want traditional marriage, who are the people of Oregon to tell them no?
Maybe it should, but it doesn't.
As best I can tell, for the same reason that there is so much demand for power-- there's a sizable group of people who really, really, REALLY want to force everyone to do what they think is proper.
They want approval, they don't have mediating social spheres that they'll recognize as enough between them and the gov't, so the gov't must enforce what they think is right-- even if it means that adult men go into the girls' locker room during changing time at kid's swim at the Y just in case there's a transexual who doesn't want to use the disabled/family room. (For an example near to me, physically.)
Foxie, you remind me of an old William F. Buckley saying - "Democrats would support anything so long as it's compulsory."
:-)
Post a Comment