"Horseshit!!!!
In the first place our Constitution has an ”Amendment Process” ..."
We don't need an amendment to the Constitution so that the federal government can do more than field an army and deliver mail.
No shit! Who said we did?
Americans have been debating the size and scope of the federal government since our founding, as we should continually. But thank God we don't have this idea that everything must be left to the states alone, or to the marketplace.
Who are you accusing of that folly? The powers of the federal government are nicely outlined in the Constitution incorporating more powers than fielding an army and delivering the mail. There is also an amendment process allowing for resolutions to future issues. I don’t believe for a second that the founders intended that the Constitution be so ignored that future generations would only have amended it 27 times in 224 years. My argument is simply that “The States” and “The People” have been denied and robed of their due process of constitutional law. Power mad politicians and courts have stolen our birthright to participate in the decisions of how we are to be governed.
We'd be a Third World country today if we adhered so closely to reading of those principles established in the mid-1700s, principles which were fiercely debated by our Founding Fathers.
If our founders believed that the founding principles they gave us were not to be “fiercely” adhered to, then why did they so fiercely debate and establish them as the rule of all law? Why did they waste so much time, paper and ink? Why did they insist that all politicians and judges take a sacred oath to preserve, protect and defend those principles? Why didn’t they simply establish golf courses where they could cut the governing deals in a much more relaxed and friendly atmosphere? Why didn’t they simply appoint a King to handle the controversies and rule over the minions as some of them promoted? Why did the idea of a Constitutional Republic by a democratic process win out over the desire of some to establish a Royal Monarchy?
We have tested and debated and ran these notions through the US Supreme Court countless times. We even fought a Civil War to secure the notion that the federal government can regulate commerce inside the states.
The courts have become a bastion of partisan politicized hacks. The Supreme Court sets aside the Constitution in favor of its own political ideology. The examples are countless. They have especially rendered the 10th amendment null and void. They have morphed the Constitution to hardly more than toilet paper. They’re political ideologues appointed by political ideologues and confirmed by political ideologues. Their loyalties are to their political ideologies in willful ignorance of their oath of office and the Constitution.
Again, we could on forever agreeing bloated the federal government has become, and how counter-productive so many programs and Departments are. But you are confusing the guiding principle that what the states can do should be left to the states, with the idea that there is virtually nothing that the federal government can or should do.
Its you who are confused! The federal government is supposed to be restrained by the powers offered and confirmed to it by the Constitution and nothing more (which I support). I don’t believe that the States should do everything, nor have I ever said as much. My argument and protest is simply that the federal government
does WAY too much and does what it has no constitutional authority to be doing. My argument is that soooooo much of what the federal government does can be done much better by the States and often even the people themselves. I argue that the States are a perfect laboratory of 50 experiments to establish social programs and regulations that one another of the States can copy or revise or ignore as opposed to the federal government’s “one size fits all” approach and the feds endless violations of our Constitution. The States are the best laboratories for education and economic conditions. I argue that the people under such conditions of State’s rights and authority are afforded the option of voting with their feet. They can and would migrate to the State whereby they are afforded their best opportunities to secure their personal and or collective rights and economic endeavors.
Surely you're not suggesting that states themselves could have set up a national interstate highway system, provided the GI Bill, created a space program, or done the work of NIH researchers "Horseshit!" for sure.
Again I repeat, “The Congress shall have the power…..to raise and
SUPPORT armies…..” That takes care of the GI bill. “The Congress shall have the power to…… establish post roads…..to regulate commerce…..” That takes care of the Interstate Highway system.
Again I ask why NASA could not have been confirmed and authorized by a constitutional amendment? I ask why the States and the people should not have had the opportunity to decide on the establishment of federal scientific programs by constitutional amendment? I ask again why the States and the people should not have had the opportunity to have their say by amendment for every federal program that isn’t authorized by the Constitution?
I’ll ask you why the federal government once upon a time found it necessary to have an amendment to our Constitution ratified to prohibit the transportation and sale of intoxicating alcohol beverages, but sought no such amendment to prohibit the sale or transportation or usage of some drugs? I’ll ask you how the courts found the latter to be constitutional?
