Skip to content

How does this strike you as an idea?

12/04/2012

If I’m remembering correctly Article 1, section 8, has the principal duties of the federal government listed as building roads, running the Post Office, and being the central command for national defense. Then the 10th Amendment says that the states are responsible for everything else, basically. Slight oversimplification, but not far off. Where we run into trouble is that “promote the general welfare” thing at the beginning. And the socialist misinterpretation of same.

How about that’s exactly what we do? Limit DC to those three duties, and let the states take care of everything else. All that money (or at least what the states need) we send in as federal income tax, for example, goes to your state government for all the things that DC thinks is their duty but is in fact not. The states wouldn’t need nearly as much to run those programs at home, and the feds wouldn’t have all those bullshit bureaucracies that get so much money pissed away on them. Much less involved in “supporting the government”, and much more immediately reportable to the people.

Just a thought. Neuter “the king”.

9 Comments
  1. upaces88 permalink
    12/04/2012 10:12

    THAT IS the way it is supposed to be….getting D.C. to accept that is like killing a bear with a sling shot. I guess it could be done IF we started ALL OVER. They are now too self absorbed with their own power and glory than to pay attention to the LITTLE “we the people.” We have become insignificant to them.

  2. upaces88 permalink
    12/04/2012 10:15

    YOUR IDEA IS PERFECT….to implement it…we would, literally, have to start completely over including harsh consequences of those who “break with our basic value system” that actually works.

  3. 12/04/2012 10:56

    We still have a chance.

  4. GomeznSA permalink
    12/04/2012 12:12

    Agreed, your idea is somewhat simple but in its essence is correct. The steps you propose would go a long way toward ‘delaminating’ the multiply redundant layers of the federal bureaucracy and eventually distilling it down to only the necessities. States and local communities could do (well in most cases anyway) a far more cost effective job of providing for local needs.

  5. 12/04/2012 14:26

    Precisely.

  6. upaces88 permalink
    12/04/2012 17:00

    And, we MUST continue believing that, CM!

  7. 12/04/2012 17:11

    Indeed.

  8. 12/05/2012 05:43

    What you propose sounds strikingly like a concept I heard years ago..hmm… let me see what’s it called… its on the tip of my brain…oh yeah federalism that’s it./snark.

    What you say has a lot of merit CM you would think that an ambitious bunch of societal entrepreneurs looking to establish a continentally sized country based on maximum input of the citizen and minimal influence of governmental busy body no nothings would try and established such a regime. Oh wait they did(ok so the snark witch is broken ok) and it has been by semantics and subterfuge turned on it’s head by sophists and carnival barkers masquerading as “educated” men of law and letters.

    To paraphrase Stalin It’s not who writes the law of the land but who gets to claim moral authority and interpret that law though whatever convoluted torture and inversion of the language who holds the real power. Remember our buddy Perfesser Ed a couple weeks ago posting reams and seems of pixilated legalistic twaddle trying to show how constrained the UN power grab of Agenda 21 really was. The US constitution is the prime example of why all that writing is meaningless. The documents premise is exceedingly simple. Here is what the Fed can do(Art. 1 Sec.8) here is what the Fed is absolutely forbidden to do(Artilce 1 sec 9 and the “Bill of rights”). All the rest is for the people or people acting corpoartely through their political state subdivisions to decide the rest under the idea that all that if it is not expressly forbidden in the constitution it is permitted. Any wonder why the constitution is for a “moral and religious” people that is it and why religion needed to be discredited by promoting the excesses of those administering it(fallible men all). Once the moral basis for the constitutions being( a moral people) is undermined the legal positivists then start with there sophistry that more control through the law must be passed to constrain men.

    The premise was to enlarge the role of the citizen and constrain the role of government a truly revolutionary idea- it had never really been tried on a truly national scale. Autonomous citizens as opposed to dependent subjects are much tougher to deal with and it is understandable why these arrogant bien pensants would want to limit our range of action so they can effect the “enlightened” solutions to indulge their pretenatual conceit.

    Actually Professor Reynolds over at Instapundit has been on this as well so you are in good company. Just from an economic perspective so called “social spending” would be much less because the most expensive layer of the bureaucracy would be stripped from the cost. And since those administering it would be better informed as to local conditions it would be more responsive and subject to 50 different solutions rather than a one size fits all approach.
    If it is successful in one state others can try it. But just because something works in North Dakota doesn’t mean it will work in New Mexico but it is another source of potential ideas.

    More federalism. Faster please.

Trackbacks

  1. Daily Reading List (12-04-12)… « Truth, Lies and In Between

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,988 other followers

%d bloggers like this: