Well, that's just the opposite of federalism. The Founding Fathers believed the states to be much more powerful than than the federal government -- the powers given to the newly formed federal government were "few and defined".
The Founders believed it much easier to control their own state than some government body hundreds of miles away; therefore, they weren't concerned about the power given to their own state.
The U.S. Supreme Court today dictates how we live our lives, not the state in which we live. The USSC is the entitity that says our kids can't pray in school, can't display religious symbols, can't even dicuss political issues 30 days before an election!, must allow abortion, must allow sodomy, on and on.
Where do I go, Ryan Spock, to raise my kids the way I want? What state offers me the kind of life I want to live? Where's MY freedom, Ryan Spock?
My view is that the Founders were saying something like this:
"Let's design a box. Inside this box, government will exist. Everything outside this box cannot and shall not be touched by government. Let's name some specific instances of things government shall not touch, just to be clear about it. But remember these are only examples -- ideally government shall not touch anything outside this box."
Technically, the "government" they would have been referring to was the federal government, because that's what the Constitution was specifically addressing. But by logical extension, my libertarian preference is that the State governments exist inside boxes that are even smaller and less intrusive than the federal government box, and contain the same explicitly named limitations as the federal box, as a baseline minimum.
412 Ryan Spock
Paulsen responds:
Well, that's just the opposite of federalism. The Founding Fathers believed the states to be much more powerful than than the federal government [not entirely true] -- the powers given to the newly formed federal government were "few and defined".
-- Few indeed, but the Constitutional 'box' included power over the States in Article VI to enforce the 'Law of the Land', which includes enforcing all Amendments to the Constitution.
The Founders believed it much easier to control their own state than some government body hundreds of miles away;
True enough, but there are prohibitions on the powers of States within the Constitution.
therefore, they weren't concerned about the power given to their own state.
Belied by the clear words of Article VI, "-- any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
The U.S. Supreme Court today dictates how we live our lives, not the state in which we live.
You're kidding yourself. They both "dictate".. Unconstitutionally.
The USSC is the entitity that says our kids can't pray in school, can't display religious symbols, can't even dicuss political issues 30 days before an election!, must allow abortion, must allow sodomy, on and on. Where do I go, Ryan Spock, to raise my kids the way I want? What state offers me the kind of life I want to live? Where's MY freedom, Ryan Spock?
You seek the contradictory 'freedom' to prohibit. -- And as long as you give that unlimited power to a States 'majority', you will find no actual liberty. Catch 22.
I understand what you mean, and this is where my simple analogy breaks down somewhat (after all, we're attempting to use a simple thing to illustrate a much more complex thing). But if you'll indulge me a little and allow me to return to this analogy, I'd like to try and understand your view.
So, we have the box in the middle of the room, and inside that box, is the federal government, strictly contained as defined by the Constitution. Are you saying that federalism dictates that ALL SPACE outside this box belongs inherently to the states? I know that the constitution of each of those states defines the size, shape, and scope of the box that each state's government exists in, but does this mean that in your view, there is no space inherently reserved for the individual people that make up those states, exclusive of the state's power to infringe? I know, as we discussed earlier, that the courts have not ruled that the 14th Amendment includes the Bill of Rights as being fully incorporated on the States. But it sounds like you're saying that federalism could allow for an individual state constitution to say in essence, "We own ALL SPACE outside the federal government box for the people in our State, and intend to place extreme restrictions on those people because that's what the people want", and that if it really was what the people wanted in that state (by way of their representatives of course, and notwithstanding the Supremacy Clause, due process, etc) then the state is absolutely free to do so. Is that correct? If so, does that disturb you at all? (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but my guess is that you'll say "No, because I trust the States to protect liberty", or something to that effect).
The U.S. Supreme Court today dictates how we live our lives, not the state in which we live.
And as I noted early on in our discussion, this is why, as somebody who values liberty, I do see the appeal of federalism to a certain degree. You sound like you're agreeing that the federal "Blob" has escaped from its box and is infringing all over the space reserved for the states and the people. I guess I'm trying to determine how extensively you view the Constitution as permitting each state to regulate the individual liberties of the people in that state (and it sounds like you're saying "To whatever extent they wish, since the federal government is over there in the box and can't stop it"). I concede that it does seem to follow, that if you are going to call on federal powers to exclude the states from infringing on certain parts of the space outside the federal box, then you are granting the federal government additional powers outside the box. Is that correct?