I'm not objecting to that. But we've noticed a certain drift in power from state/local governments to the center since 1789. I am arguing that the drift in power is structural, not cyclical.
To be precise, I am arguing that the Constitution is actually flawed in its balance of powers because the balance is not inherently stable. It does not describe a real "balance", merely an initial state. Imagine, if you will, a see-saw perfectly level, with a fat kid on one end and a skinny kid on the other. We know where things will end up.
And if you look back over the course of history, making a straight line from 2012 to 1789, was there ever a time when states and localities reclaimed some power from the federal government? Was there some great wave in one year or other when the tide turned and all of a sudden, states started to actually get more power? Rather, the absence of any events like this is pretty striking.
Agreed.
The structure is not in the document, it is in human nature.
the Constitution is actually flawed in its balance of powers because the balance is not inherently stable.
Yes. It was (hmmm, past tense, was) a pretty good attempt to set up a system where the instability rocked between the branches in a sustainable fashion.