Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

The Limits of Federal Authority

Kevin asks a question I have no clear answer for.

Posted by Dean | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks
JFC:
Dean,

Why do you say that you have no clear answer? I think the answer is very clear: the Federal Government can do what it damm well pleases--very much to the detriment of our nation.

Occaisionally the people rise up to deflect the tide, but like the rock in the river, the people can not resist the flow of the water. Eventually, the government will have its way. Taoism is wonderful or hopeless, depending if you are the river or the rock.

The river is driven by the absolute corruption of the politicians in charge, and enabled by the apathy and narrow self interest of the masses (When they came for the Jews, I said nothing because I was not Jewish. When they came for ...).

It is a very horrible cycle of complacency. All civilizations to date have fallen. The better we have it, the more we can let things slide. When do we, the great big US of A, fall? When we run out of the fat that the current social system is sucking on.

John

[addendum 1]
To see the absolute corruption of politicians at high levels witness the illegal immigration policies of the Bush administration. For a more personal taste, experience the effect of the recent emminent domain decisions. Your local Planning Board (about 5 local bozos, the majority of whom are fairly corrptible) refuses to acknowledge the commercial value of your property. They confiscate it at a low price. They re-zone it to commercial status with very high value. They sell it at a profit. Next, they are thanked personally and extensively by the new buyers and by the City Council that recives increased tax reveneus. Corruption does not get more blatant than that. If you have not experienced it, you have not lived.

[sidebar 2]
To evaluate the possibilities of civilization's rise and fall, consider current international events.

It's possible that Islamic terrorists are just the thing we need to force us to re-engineer ourselves. But I doubt it. We are still pussy-footing around. We can occupy, or otherwise destroy every Muslim state in the world if we have to, along with anyone who objects. We are still being excessively nice, which does not really pressure our gut behavior.

I think that China holds the key. Here is the question that we will face: Do we want to be self righteous, but subservient to China? Or do we want to say "f-ck that" to China, and live with the guilty conscience that will accompany our victory? The Chinese are not fooling around. They are up-and-coming and they mean business.

[sidebar 3]
I think I have had too much to drink. But what do you expect, posting after midnight on a Friday? Get a life, would you? :)
7.30.2005 5:31am
Steven Malcolm Anderson (www):
The Decline of the West....?
7.30.2005 7:35am
Dean Esmay:
If we are declining, then who or what is ascendant?
7.30.2005 8:43am
Jack (www):
It is not that there is no limit on federal authority. The question is whether the limit is inherent in the Constitution and enforced by courts, or not inherent but nonetheless enforced by the Congress. The former has the advantage of being timeless, and the disadvantage of being inflexible. Surely the world is different today than in 1789 or 1865, if for no other reasons than there are a great many more "externalities" that might demand federal solutions rather than local solutions.

In theory, the purpose of the Senate, which is an extremely undemocratic institution, is to limit the encroachment of federal power on the states. That is why Senators representing an extremely small percentage of the US population can block legislation that is an unproper expression of federal power.
7.30.2005 11:25am
Mark at Urthshu (www):

If we are declining, then who or what is ascendant?

According to the text referred obliquely to: Empire.
7.30.2005 1:02pm
Sandi (www):
Where Does Federal Authority End?

This is not a hard question, Federal authority ends at the "Bill of Rights," which wasn't in the Constitution to begin because the framers thought the bill would actually rob Americans of their rights. The framers overwhelmingly rejected any notion of a bill of rights. Only 2 men of 55 spoke in favor of the measure, and the state delegations rejected the idea unanimously when the proposal was put forth during the Constitutional Convention. Later in the First Congress it barely passed because of intense pressure from Anti-Federalist factions.

The world the framers gave us was government powers limited to a small list (Article I section 8) leaving all the rest of the powers and rights (large un-enumerated list) to the people. The world the Bill of Rights gives the people (small list) is just the opposite. The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of powers reserved, and everything not reserved is presumed to be given. An imperfect enumeration throws implied power of what isn't enumerated to the government and our power is incomplete.

That is exactly what has happened and where the Federal government has gotten it's power. Last December I blogged on this subject.

This, of course, is the sad situation in which we now live. A huge majority of Americans and our legislators believe that the federal government may legislate on any topic, at any time, for any reason, period - so long as the legislation does not offend the Bill of Rights. We used to have all the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, plus untold scores of others. Now, as the framers predicted, we have only those rights contained in the Bill of Rights. This is a disaster, not a blessing.

The world the framers gave us (government's powers limited to a small list) is entirely different from the world given by the Bill of Rights (people's powers limited to a small list). These two worlds are mutually exclusive. They represent, with mathematical precision, exact and precise diametric opposites. One is the antithesis of the other. The world the framers gave us is not diminished by the Bill of Rights, it is not marginalized; it is utterly and absolutely destroyed. These two visions simply cannot exist side by side. One must die, and indeed, one did.

Others will blame any of a dozen different reasons for our lost rights, but can it really be a coincidence that the only rights we have left are found in the Bill of Rights? Can it?
7.30.2005 2:39pm
Arnold Harris (mail):
A clear barrier against the congress or the federal courts to trump states' rights are clearly spelled out in the 21st amendment to the US Constitution, which ended national prohibition in 1933 and gave to the states exclusive right to approve or disapprove delivery, possession and use of intoxicating licquors. Perhaps there are other examples.

Certainly there is the 10th amendment, which declaims:

"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."

Where the 10th amendment is followed in practice is another matter, but the constitution clearly spells out its own limits.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
7.30.2005 4:10pm
Steven Malcolm Anderson (www):
Read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the Declaration of Independence. God-given rights (to life, liberty, and property inhere in the people, who then delegate to state and federal governments explicitly stated and stringently limited powers to protect those rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The government does not grant rights, it only protects them. It has only the powers explicitly granted to it in the Constitution.
7.30.2005 4:17pm
Steven Malcolm Anderson (www):
That is a good question: If the West is declining, then what is ascending? The Russians have still to "get their act together", as the young people say, and the same with Africa and South America. It looks like Islam, an already long-decayed or fossilized ideology, the last excretion of the aging Magian culture, is taking over sheerly by our default, through that spiritual vacuum of which Whittaker Chambers wrote.
7.30.2005 4:23pm
Kevin D (mail):
Hey! How about sending some of these comments my way? My blog needs traffic!
7.30.2005 9:07pm
Arnold Harris (mail):
Well, for one thing, Kevin, you link from Dean's World is busted. Try it yourself. Click on the (www) beside your name above. All you get is plenty of nothing.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
7.31.2005 4:32pm
Kevin D (mail) (www):
Well, it was working. I think I fixed it.
8.1.2005 1:30am