Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanAtPlay
I'm not a fan of most of the arguments. They are simply wrong.
There is only a single argument which is correct. The document...the United States Constitution lays out the manner and procedure of government of this political union of sovereign States. It addresses the structure and powers of the FEDERAL government. It is the FINAL word. Anybody who believes otherwise is completely wrong. No court no law can overrule the document.
The Executive Branch is not allowed to make laws...they call them "rules". But "treated as law". Nor are they allowed to impose judicial punishments but they do by imposing fines every day, with no judicial review of that action.
The Federal government performs thousands of tasks through taxes raised. But the Constitution only provides for 18 specific tasks...all other tasks and powers are reserved to the States individually or to the people. They levy taxes and spend on thousands of processes. The FEDERAL in federalism, is that the "central government" is limited. A reminder...the States created the Federal government, and should be allowed to opt-out when it does not agree and want to overrule an action. No provision in the constitution was made for the punishment of a State who refuses to go along with the will of the majority. It's because the Founders did not envision that it would be necessary, because the Union was a loose grouping by their design.
The fact that some people are "helped" by Federal wealth redistribution is not relevant. The States are to provide those needs. If Texas wants to create an Obamacare-like program...then it's free to do so....but will have to tax their own citizens to provide for it. Same with Social Security....each STATE would be expected to provide it. The role of the Federal government was to be limited to being the referee, not the 800 pound gorilla.
Separation of Church and State.....it's proclaimed to be a Constitutional Mandate....but I just seem not to be able to find the words....have it right here.
Constitutional lawyers often are not taught the Constitution. They are taught "case law"...as if a Congressionally passed law can overrule the constitutional requirement? Ask ANY constitutional lawyer...any question on what it REALLY says...they can't answer! And this business of the Supreme Court as the final determiner on what the Constitution means....is also.....not a power of the Constitution awarded to that branch of government.
So my position....is the document....as it is written! Literally. My candidates are measured against that standard. (Ron Paul.....he's the closest.) It's not a left-vs-right argument. It's about faithfulness to the model and structure of the government --- the law of the land, and overruling ALL OTHER sources of law and rulings. That is the fight.
It doesn't mean Social Security ends....it just means it gets broken up and administered by the States...individually. Medicare doesn't go away over night...but again...the State fund it. It doesn't mean everybody gets to carry guns on the streets either, unless that State wants that to happen.
Better government is government that happens locally and is more responsive to the people.
When was the last time you were able to convince (personally) a Member of Congress to change their vote...just on a general issue? It's the current party system which has locked the politics into red vs blue, Elephant vs Ass.
And just going for the middle...means that each side compromises....and that means even more money gets spent on these bi-partisan grand bargains! They all go home with their "cut" for their districts.
It's time to end it. Go back to the original blueprint and stick to it. And elect men and women who also believe in this.
|
As a founding principle and guide yes, but in real world application as an absolute, no.
