News
Sports
ENLARGE
“Ambitious encroachments of the Federal Government on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State or a few States only. They would be signals of a general alarm…”
- James Madison, “The Federalist #46”
Or not. The auguries are that time is running out for our Federal Republic, that masterful political design our founders created to balance a plethora of interests, local and national, transcendent and mundane. In its place, we have been busily creating that which our Founders assured their skittish public would never happen: a unitary, national government.
One of the first major steps was taken in the Progressive Era, with the ratification of the 17th amendment. For those of us who don't follow these things, this was one of the crown jewels of progressive politics — which also brought us the initiative and referendum. Simply stated, it placed the power to elect US senators in the hands of the people of the various states.
Previously, senators had been elected by the legislatures of the several states; a power which, as Madison noted in the Federalist #45, made them representatives of the state's interests, rather than merely a congressman with a longer term. This change radically altered the balance of power between state legislatures and Congress; less than two decades later a torrent of new federal programs altered the balance even further.
A more recent encroachment is the US Supreme Court decision in McCullough v. Chicago, regarding the Second Amendment and Chicago's attempt to ban handguns. The Court unequivocally struck down Chicago's ban, but conservatives shouldn't celebrate. It did so by incorporating the Second Amendment upon the states. Incorporation, made possible by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, had been used sparingly until the latter part of the 20th century; recently, it has become almost commonplace. In the McCullough decision, a provision of the Constitution originally meant only to restrict the power of the federal government has now been made a roadblock to future actions by state governments.
The equal protection clause itself was used recently by a US District Court judge to strike down California's ban on gay marriage. In doing so, he announced that the state “has no interest in differentiating” among types of marriages, which might have come as a surprise to the 52 percent of California voters who approved the ban. More important than the judge's inability to tell the difference between himself and the state of California, is the incorporation of the federal Constitution into questions of who does what with whom in the Golden State.
Perhaps the most monumental “ambitious encroachment” on the powers of the states and their citizens for the decade will be seen with the realization of the Obamacare mandate on each and every one of us to purchase health insurance. This is not “regulation of interstate commerce,” which is permitted by the Constitution. This is demanding interstate commerce, which is not the grounds for lawsuits against the undertaking. Now we must see if there are judges left who can read plain English. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments might be a place to start …
The people who created the United States tried to save us from this. They built the best system they knew how, to ensure the widest latitude for human freedom they could. We have tinkered with it since; there have been many improvements, and some blunders but for the better part of 200 years, we had been careful. We paid attention when we were warned that what a government gives, it can also take away, and that a government too large and unguarded can develop voracious appetites and strange attitudes about those it serves.
But in the last fifty-odd years, we developed amnesia. We became complacent. State governments became sideshows. Washington had the power to dispose, and dispose it did. But there was a price: tell me again about “Race to the Top.” Who's doling out the money? What do they want for it? And why do they think Washington's ideas are so very much better than ours? If you were to go to a local school board meeting and ask those questions, you might get some answers. Your concerns might even be addressed. But if you think you can drop in on Carmel Martin at the Department of Education and get the same treatment, well …
Remember what California Congressman Pete Stark said when asked what authority the Federal Government had to buy car companies or demand that citizens purchase health care? “The Federal Government can do whatever it wants.”
That's not the attitude of a public servant, or someone who cares about the Constitution Quite the opposite. Somewhere, James Madison is doing a spit-take with his ambrosia.
Summit County resident Morgan Liddick pens a Tuesday column. E-mail him at mcliddick@hotmail.com. Also, comment on this column at www.summitdaily.com.
- James Madison, “The Federalist #46”
Or not. The auguries are that time is running out for our Federal Republic, that masterful political design our founders created to balance a plethora of interests, local and national, transcendent and mundane. In its place, we have been busily creating that which our Founders assured their skittish public would never happen: a unitary, national government.
One of the first major steps was taken in the Progressive Era, with the ratification of the 17th amendment. For those of us who don't follow these things, this was one of the crown jewels of progressive politics — which also brought us the initiative and referendum. Simply stated, it placed the power to elect US senators in the hands of the people of the various states.
Previously, senators had been elected by the legislatures of the several states; a power which, as Madison noted in the Federalist #45, made them representatives of the state's interests, rather than merely a congressman with a longer term. This change radically altered the balance of power between state legislatures and Congress; less than two decades later a torrent of new federal programs altered the balance even further.
A more recent encroachment is the US Supreme Court decision in McCullough v. Chicago, regarding the Second Amendment and Chicago's attempt to ban handguns. The Court unequivocally struck down Chicago's ban, but conservatives shouldn't celebrate. It did so by incorporating the Second Amendment upon the states. Incorporation, made possible by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, had been used sparingly until the latter part of the 20th century; recently, it has become almost commonplace. In the McCullough decision, a provision of the Constitution originally meant only to restrict the power of the federal government has now been made a roadblock to future actions by state governments.
The equal protection clause itself was used recently by a US District Court judge to strike down California's ban on gay marriage. In doing so, he announced that the state “has no interest in differentiating” among types of marriages, which might have come as a surprise to the 52 percent of California voters who approved the ban. More important than the judge's inability to tell the difference between himself and the state of California, is the incorporation of the federal Constitution into questions of who does what with whom in the Golden State.
Perhaps the most monumental “ambitious encroachment” on the powers of the states and their citizens for the decade will be seen with the realization of the Obamacare mandate on each and every one of us to purchase health insurance. This is not “regulation of interstate commerce,” which is permitted by the Constitution. This is demanding interstate commerce, which is not the grounds for lawsuits against the undertaking. Now we must see if there are judges left who can read plain English. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments might be a place to start …
The people who created the United States tried to save us from this. They built the best system they knew how, to ensure the widest latitude for human freedom they could. We have tinkered with it since; there have been many improvements, and some blunders but for the better part of 200 years, we had been careful. We paid attention when we were warned that what a government gives, it can also take away, and that a government too large and unguarded can develop voracious appetites and strange attitudes about those it serves.
But in the last fifty-odd years, we developed amnesia. We became complacent. State governments became sideshows. Washington had the power to dispose, and dispose it did. But there was a price: tell me again about “Race to the Top.” Who's doling out the money? What do they want for it? And why do they think Washington's ideas are so very much better than ours? If you were to go to a local school board meeting and ask those questions, you might get some answers. Your concerns might even be addressed. But if you think you can drop in on Carmel Martin at the Department of Education and get the same treatment, well …
Remember what California Congressman Pete Stark said when asked what authority the Federal Government had to buy car companies or demand that citizens purchase health care? “The Federal Government can do whatever it wants.”
That's not the attitude of a public servant, or someone who cares about the Constitution Quite the opposite. Somewhere, James Madison is doing a spit-take with his ambrosia.
Summit County resident Morgan Liddick pens a Tuesday column. E-mail him at mcliddick@hotmail.com. Also, comment on this column at www.summitdaily.com.
