A fellow blogger writes about what she would do if she were president. (link)
Let me take this opportunity to explain why she is dangerously wrong. I know a lot of people that think like here. Indeed, I used to think like her. But it is still wrong and dangerous and our Founding Fathers identified it early on as a threat to our liberty.
People tend to think that the choice of the federal government is to do something one way or the other. That’s not true. The choice is, ultimately, to do something or not to do it at all. Our Founding Fathers made a very short list of things the federal government could do, and explicitly wrote in the 10th Amendment that everything else was off-limits.
The two basic areas that the federal government has been granted power to act by the people and the states are:
- Foreign relations, including treaties, trade policy and war.
- Relationships among the states, including inter-state trade, resolution of disputes, and basic limits on forms of government within the states.
Granted, a few, specific things have been added or removed over the years through the amendment process, and a few things have changed in very slight but appreciable ways. The constitution is specific, however. Only a constitutional amendment can change the meaning of one word in that document, and that by explicit language passed by 3/4 of the states.
Whenever someone wishes that the federal government would do more than the above list of 2 items, they are running a dangerous course towards tyranny.
Our Founding Fathers wisely introduced the concept of “Balance of Powers” into our system of government. Those who have a basic understanding of the constitution identify the three branches of government—the president, congress, and the courts—and can identify how those three balance each other out. But that is only a fraction of the picture.
More importantly, there are three additional institutions in the United States that balance out the federal government and keep it in check. They are:
- The states as a group.
- The people as a whole (and not a majority or minority.)
- The individual.
These three forces act to limit what the federal government can do, and to punish the federal government when it exceeds its bounds set by the constitution.
Why is it so important that the federal government be relegated to the uninteresting role of dealing with foreign nations and ensuring that free trade exists among the states? Because the Founding Fathers believed that having lots of little tiny governments compete with each other is the best way to ensure that government is kept accountable and that good governments rise to the top while bad ones sink into oblivion. This concept comes in many forms and names, but I believe it is the same concept that drives progress in the free market: competition.
See, with the federal government at the top, ensuring that people and goods are allowed to move freely between the states, the states become competitors, bidding for trade and people. The more trade they get, the more people that choose to live there, the better off that state will be.
Well, what can a state do to attract or repel people? Its laws and tax codes, which can cover far more than the federal government can ever dream of covering, can either attract people because it creates prosperity and happiness, or drive them out because other states are doing a better job.
And not just states, but counties, cities, towns, school boards, etc… all compete one with another to attract new people or drive them out.
With this in mind, let me provide what is within and without the limits of the federal government from Rebelliousvanilla’s list:
- Healthcare. Aside from ensuring that contracts remain enforced across state borders and that medical supplies and personnel can flow freely between the states without tariffs or taxation, the federal government can do nothing. It is up to the states to figure out how to regulate the medical industry, if they decide to regulate it at all. The liberal wants the federal government to dictate healthcare policy because if one state were to implement the liberal’s ideas, people would flee that state to states where healthcare policy is more free. One are RV is correct is the labeling of goods that flow across state borders. This is something that the federal government can do.
- Illegal Immigrants. This is an area where the federal government has absolute authority since it deals with foreign nations and treaties. We have very good laws on the books already. The president simply has to enforce them.
- Poor. The poor, and all social welfare, is way beyond anything the federal government can do. It is a state and individual issue. Like healthcare, liberals want a federal welfare program because any state adopting it would soon go bankrupt.
- Divorce laws. Aside from regulating how marriage contracts are applied across state borders (they can’t change across state borders—making California’s constitutional amendment invalid), the federal government has no say.
- Abuse protection and equal funding. This is social welfare. It is up to the states and the individual, not the federal government.
- Education. The federal government has no say.
- Abortion and drugs. I don’t know that the federal government can limit trade. The only thing that can do is force drug traffickers to declare what they are shipping, and hold them accountable to the federal government when they lie about transporting drugs between the states. The states can punish possession, consumption, manufacture, and distribution. On abortion, the federal government can hold the states accountable for executing individuals without due process, but that’s about it.
- Research and energy. Although the federal government can fund research, they cannot limit energy trade across state borders.
- Taxes. The federal government can set tax policy for federal revenues. Under a federal government executing its proper role, there isn’t much need for money beyond the military. During peacetime (and we haven’t been at peace since WWII), the federal government would only hire a few judges and diplomats, and that’s pretty much it. Whatever taxes above that would be used to pay off the war debt.
- Defense. RV is right here—this is the primary duty of the federal government.
Hopefully, the idea of the separation of powers where the states, the people, and individuals are included as other checks on the federal government will be restored in the public consciousness. It is terribly important that we keep government distributed so that it competes with itself.
May 29, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
I wouldn’t work the way Obama does. I said those are the things I will try to achieve, but I will try to work with the states, not against them. For example, related to healthcare, you can’t jump from a system like yours where the government is intertwined with the market to a completely free one because that would create chaos.
I never said that I want to limit energy flows in between the states. Related to the poor, those subsidizes can be in form of tax breaks, which are constitutional. Related to abuse, yes, it is social welfare, but if the government is to fund those things, they need to stop discriminating on gender. Roe vs Wade made it clear related to abortion, but I would try to get the Supreme Court to reinterpret their decision on the things I wrote related to abortion. And what if my pursuit of happiness is being a junkie? Then the states have no say either. :)
You haven’t been at peace since WW2 because you didn’t respect your own Constitution related to foreign policy and got dragged into NATO, interfered with other countries sovereignty(see your take on N Korea) and did pre-emptive wars. You will never be at peace if you keep this foreign policy.
And as I said on my blog, I agree with you on most things you said here, but you can’t jump from a government that regulates everything to one that does nothing because it would create chaos. On another hand, states can be persuaded to adopt a part of those things in order to have a more effective way of dealing with things.
May 29, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
This is not true. Our society’s order isn’t provided by the government, but by the people. As long as the government protects the rights of the people, there will law and order. It is this radical departure that we are living under right now that is causing all the chaos around us.
May 29, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
Yes, the problem America faces is we have long turned our back on our Constitution and our Founders’ principles. The Federal Government has an incessant desire to grow and they seize that control from the states by regulating commerce between them. They simply find a way to relate everything to commerce or the possiblity of commerce between states and voila! – power. Also, the states absolutely shot themselves in the foot with the 17th Amendment that removed their representation in the Federal Government which was an extremely important check on national government by our Founders. We have done ourselves no favors by selectively using our Constitution, and until we get back to those principles, Rome will continue to burn.
May 30, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
Mickey, the states shot themselves in the feet by letting the federal government do the income tax scheme. lol. Now the federal government taxes their inhabitants and then they force them to pass certain regulations in order to get the money back. Look at the stimulus package because if you took the money, you were automatically implementing certain things.
This made them shoot in the feet way more than the Senate issue.
Jonathan, I understand what you are saying, but for example, what will you do when you will stop Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, grants and so on and lots of people will riot? Because believe me, people will get mad that they contributed(more like they got robbed) to something and they won’t reap any benefits. Same will happen to everything that is now regulated by the US gov because it will be a lag before the states pick up the slack. Plus, some things are impossible to regulate at the state level and those things got a lot more complex than they were 200 years ago. The person who was talking about the trans-border pollution was right. You’d want states suing each other? Because this will happen when state officials will realize they can benefit from it. And those other states, for example those who produce energy, won’t be able to impose export taxes for the states who sue them for polluting due to the Constitution. So the states who produce energy will get all the problems and no rewards. I agree with you that a lot of power should return to the states, but it has to be done gradually so that the states can pick up the slack.
Also, as you probably know, the entitlement programs are bankrupt. How will the states finance them considering their state banks can’t print? By the way, what I find amusing is that without the gold standard, taxes for the federal government don’t even make sense. They could just print the money they need for the army, for example. It would be the equivalent of a flat tax rate on everyone that holds US$.