The United States started out as an unusual experiment. When America was a young nation, people referred to it as, “These United States,” not the United States.
Now we are seeing a radical change in the United States. This is certainly not a change for the better. What is this change and why is it so bad?
The change we are seeing is the death of the individual state.
Our founding fathers envisioned a union of states with a weak national government and stronger state governments. There were certain things that a national government would be required to do, such as regulate trade (the Constitution is very explicit about this) and provide for the common defense.
One of the greatest quotes about the individual states came from then Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who called the states, “The laboratories of democracy.”
Brandeis’ idea was simple. The states were sovereign and could compete with each other for the best ideas.
Today, the laboratory of democracy is closed. Today, the sovereignty of individual states is dying. The only question is when will the actual death occur.
State sovereignty has been on the wane for decades. As the power of the Federal Government grew, the power of state governments diminished. At first this was slow and gradual. Much of it was done voluntarily, as states gave up their rights in exchange for federal tax dollars.
On Monday, the Supreme Court decided the case of Arizona v. the United States and five unelected people in little black dresses gave the deathblow to state sovereignty.
Antonin Scalia writing his dissent said that. He wrote that the majority’s decision, “deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result.”
Today, state lines are becoming little more than antiquated lines on a map. Pretty soon, the only power a state will have is the ability to make license plates.
Lawyers often say bad cases make bad law. Arizona was a bad case. Arizona had no choice but to bring its lawsuit. We can lay the blame for this one right at the feet of Barack Obama and the Party of Treason.
However, when we talk about assaults on state sovereignty, the Party of Treason is not alone in this. Many of the big government expansions that have eroded state sovereignty have occurred under Republican Presidents.
If the Republicans are successful in taking the White House and the Senate (they will keep the House), then we will see the next incarnation of attacks on state sovereignty.
That will come in the form of Federal Tort Reform. Some Republicans want to impose Federal Tort Reform on all of the states.
Many people have a knee jerk reaction to tort reform. Oh, we don’t like the trial lawyers. We don’t like lawyers, period. Let’s hurt the lawyers.
Since 1787, states have regulated state courts. Since 1787, states have regulated licensed professionals in those states including doctors, lawyers and others. In Federal Court, unless there is a lawsuit governed by a specific federal statute, state law controls the federal courts. Lawyers cannot be admitted to practice before federal courts until they are admitted before the highest court of one of the states.
To allow the Federal Government to impose tort reform on the states wipes out some of the last vestiges of state sovereignty, namely the ability to make its own laws.
State sovereignty has always been the bulwark against they tyranny of a massive federal government. Our founding fathers knew that. That is why they purposefully made the Federal Government weak.
In the last century, citizens have stood by and watched as the Federal Government grew at the expense of the state government. As the power of the Federal Government grew, the freedom of the citizen diminished.
As of Monday, state sovereignty is pretty much dead. The only question now is when do we start calling our nation The United State of America?
When there are great spaces and low population .. the idea of INDIVIDUAL STATES was an excellent laboratory for government and loosely controlling the federal Government. But, as the TECHNOLOGY and CIVILIZATION has grown .. a larger PARTNERSHIP has occurred in the USA between States and Federal Government.
I agree, the FEDERAL part of the partnership is presently burying the States control, but then as our STATE BORDERS are now so porous that we travel over state lines for the NECESSITY of Commerce and Business as if there were no states, there is SOME, not always, but some logic to having a larger entity to have control over the country as a whole.
Because there is no STANDING ARMY of the STATE, but only a STANDING ARMED FORCES of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, we have given over some of that sovereignty to the federals, which some people have mistaken as a total surrender of all rights, and that is NOT THE TRUTH OF ALL THINGS or of the LAWS under the CONSTITUTION.
The pendulum of POLITICAL INSANITY has swung so far to one side .. I can't blame some people for going crazy to wake people up to the EXTREME take-over of State's rights by the Federal Government, and yet there are RESTRICTIONS within The CONSTITUTION that stipulate what Federal Government can and CANNOT do.
Maybe WE THE PEOPLE got into this mess by thinking the giant SLUSH FUND of the Federal Government could solve all problems... but now in this great recession and Debt Crisis ... we see that is NOT SO!
HOW ABOUT ... we FOLLOW those stipulations in the CONSTITUTION to restrict federal control? HOW ABOUT .... we use some common sense instead of the INSANE LOONEY interpretations that come about in the last 30 or so years by Liberals? How about..... we educate our population to the fact that if the STATE does not perform it's duties to it's citizens under a UNITED STATES law .... if that neglect is a danger to oneself and others,,, the FEDERALS WILL THEN STEP IN to make the STATE SAFE TO ITSELF AND OTHERS?
My question is .. WHEN is it responsible for STATES to tell FEDERAL Government when it is a DANGER to itself and others,,, and STEP IN to FIX Federal Government? Federals forget .. it is a PARTNERSHIP .. not a dictatorship... don't they though?
I know not everyone is happy with COMMON SENSE ... but isn't there a common sense lesson in CUTTING A BABY IN HALF to see who truly loves the child enough to give it up, or have both disputing women come to their senses to do what is BEST FOR THE CHILD and not give in to their SELFISHNESS? Yeah... that seems to be the point at which the USA is at now ... but can we see the WISDOM is both loving the CHILD that is the USA and BOTH doing what is best for that child? I wonder some days if there is ANY common sense left in America? Don't you...
The problem with your reasoning is the other side has no love for this country and is bent on destroying it. There is a way to change the Constitution and it is not by edict. This is a socialist overthrow of this country. The other side only has ill intentions and in the end bring suffering and death. I say give them no quarter.
In your "common sense" analysis, you may fail to acknowledge that like an insidious malignancy, all levels of government from the town council (Bell, California) to the oval office have been insideously invaded by cunning vermin intent upon "fundamentally changing America" which is simply code for trashing the constitution in favor of socialism and ultimately communism while enriching themselves along the way.
The complacency of affluence has been narcotic of the proletariat which has numbly permitted this invasion. The final death throe comes tomorrow when the fate of the of the nation, indeed the world, lies in the hands of one man wearing a black dress: Justice Kennedy. God help us!
Every now and then a brave soul creeps out from within and challenges the lawlessness. Here is another brave soul,
The Horse of Tyranny is ridden by "protecting us from ourselves or others" It's just like "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" once this nonsensical act was done; our rights were subjugated. Once Gov can remove a Right to protect someone else; you hav no rights. A Right Cannot be removed by Gov; it was given by God. Nobody says you have to believe someone who yells fire in a theatre. Check this out:http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/06/man-cites-law-as-he-is-detained-f...
Our "Founders" did not form a government of "common sense." It formed a constitutional republic. It formed a government of Laws. It formed a government where God grants limited sovereignty to humans, who in turn grant or delegate some areas of sovereignty to States, who in turn delegated and enumerated specific powers and areas of sovereignty to the federal government divided into its three branches.
"Separation of powers," and "checks and balances," were tools for protection of liberty created by our "Founders" and adopted by the States though ratification of our "Founding documents [Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution]" all explained and defined in the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, debates of the constitutional convention, and numerous writings of that era.
While some legislation may deal with complex issues, our nation's forming and its reliance on God and Biblical Christianity AND the Rule of Law were easily understood by most of the nations people.
Common sense is all well and good. HOWEVER, it is the Rule of valid Laws and Christianity that is our only hope and road map for restoring and preserving our Liberty.
Over 200 years ago, thirteen separate small sovereign Nation States found that they each had certain problems in common: border security and a few smaller problems. In response, they banded together to form a limited union, these States United, And ceded certain limited and enumerated powers to this union of 13 previously sovereign Nation States. The limitations of ceded powers were reiterated in the 10th amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.
The present Arizona problems represent not only an abrogation of a State's border security legal agreement, it amounts to a complete denial of the State to control it's own borders!
I apologize to all here for presenting such simplistic information. But sometimes, I think, it is necessary to get back to basics. Sometimes we simply can't see the forest for the trees!
You are so right Mr. Shotwell. Maybe in our attempts to control the expansion of the federal government we have forgotten that for years the liberals have been ruling through the courts. Nobody seems to think that we can and should control the courts. That's is wrong headed. Maybe a good dose of term limits on Supreme Court justices is in order. At least put an age limit on their tenure. I think that the retirement age for the courts should be the same as for everyone else, 65 and you're out to pasture, or write books or something. Same goes for the congress. Good luck with all that when the Supreme Court would probably get to rule on it. Sorry, I'm just rambling. Ray
Sorry, it is far beyond my abilities to "break this one down - either Pro or Con"
I can merely provide relevant information.....And SCOTUS has spoken. POTUS as well has reacted!
SCOTUS and POTUS have SCREWTUS!
Now that's funny!
Yep. That was the death knell of the republic.