I think the writer expresses a vain hope, but it might be useful to keep it alive to be remembered when our children, or their children, remake the United States.
The Return to Enumerated Powers America
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
“… govern themselves in relation to education, energy, their environmental landscape…”
Environmental issues don’t stop at arbitrary state borders, nor the energy issue or, for that matter, education. True, Department of Energy is more about our nuclear issues, but outside of that we have a grid. Texas knows first hand how bad things can get if not part of it.
Education? Brown v. Board of Education was an indicator the states were not treating minority citizens as anymore than second class citizens.
Most Americans agree that large bureaucratic institutions have downsides, but when the crunch comes, favored constituencies determine largesse from both side of the aisle.
We are not really 50 different fiefdoms. Ease of travel, the internet, the grid, water supplies, clean air, healthcare, commerce, food supplies and education are all effectively borderless issues.
Excepting commerce, these are not even addressed in our Constitution. They did not exist then.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “We are not really 50 different fiefdoms. Ease of travel, the internet, the grid, water supplies, clean air, healthcare, commerce, food supplies and education are all effectively borderless issues.”
By the same logic, we are not really 195 countries in the world. Because all nations are connected by global communications and trade, the U.S. has no right to govern itself.
Here’s my point: Just because we can think of some excuse to federalize something doesn’t meant we should do it.
The Founders conceived of limited government, constrained by enumerated powers. I think that was a good idea that deserves reconsideration.
LikeLike
“ By the same logic…”
We are one of a quadrillion solar systems…
Back to reality. I think it would be impossible to do a restart based on a framework that originated in a nation where people didn’t travel, communicate globally, didn’t have factory farms, no healthcare, no schools for most, few banks, 40 year life expectancy, etc.
We are seeing the fruits of letting states determine policies that affect people to a great degree. Abortion.
Right now there are laws in some states that prevent a woman with a problem pregnancy from proper medical intervention unless she is near death or irreversible physical damage. We have drugs that are blocked nationally to satisfy certain states fears that they are used for medical abortions in addition to treating miscarriages.
Some folks may be proud Texans, but they are first of all Americans.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “I think it would be impossible to do a restart based on a framework that originated in a nation where people didn’t travel, communicate globally, didn’t have factory farms, no healthcare, no schools for most, few banks, 40 year life expectancy, etc.”
I think a restart is inevitable, as our system cannot function in its current form much longer. When it becomes time to rebuild we should prevent federal control over anything the constitution we then create doesn’t expressly authorize.
I would also point out that federal control of a thing is a double edged sword. A federal judge in Texas, for example, recently issued a stay that halts the prescription and distribution of the abortion drug mifepristone based on the FDA’s violation of standards affecting its original approval. The effect of the stay is nationwide because the FDA is nationwide. Were there no FDA, the effects of the judge’s ruling would have been localized.
LikeLike
…” based on the FDA’s violation of standards affecting its original approval”
A claim that is already being challenged. An activist federal judge inserted HIS opinion when the scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the drug is SAFE. And has been since it was approved.
“Were there no FDA, the effects of the judge’s ruling would have been localized.”
And it is for that exact reason that some federal laws ARE necessary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “And it is for that exact reason that some federal laws ARE necessary.”
Federal laws to support unconstitutional government powers are by definition invalid.
LikeLike
What is unconstitutional about the Commerce Clause?
LikeLike
Yes a federal judge made a ruling, but it will undoubtedly be overturned even at the SCOTUS level if it gets that far.
IMO, he was not acting as a federal judge, but an anti-abortion activist who happens to collect a paycheck as a judge in Amarillo. This is most certainly legislating from the bench to an extreme degree. He certainly is not in any position to determine safety and efficacy of any drug other than through personal opinion.
Again, though, the most important thing is to make sure this case, and the appeals, stay on the front page. It reminds women that they are but a few rulings or votes from maintaining their reproductive freedoms so long as the Republicans have any control at all.
“Save the eggs, shoot the children” makes a nice bumper sticker…after suitable thoughts and prayers, of course.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you find an inadequacy in the Constitution, such as the need to control pollution crossing state lines, then the Constitution can be amended to grant that power, but don’t stretch the power to control commerce between the States into something it is not. It would be a pretty sensible amendment so it should be easy to pass and ratify.
The power grid can be handled by cooperative agreements between the states.
But the important thing is to respect the Constitution because letting it be twisted when it suits your purposes also lets it be turned against you.
LikeLike
The Torah is essentially the first five books of the Old Testament.
The Talmud is a collection of writings and interpretations that consists of literally thousands of double sided pages expounding on the Torah.
The same with our Constitution. The interpretations and writings over the centuries would take up a law library.
Both of those examples pretty much tell us that writing law is easy, but applying it is difficult.
We just had an attempted attack on Congress because of a law from the late 1800’s that was supposed to clarify the certification process of a national election. It was intended to clear up the Constitutional role of Congress and the VP, but even that was muddied.
Understanding state sovereignty was a lot different in 1784 than today. Lifespans, labor practices, education, healthcare, environmental issues were different or didn’t exist. And they are as critical to our society as establishing a postal service was 250 years ago.
Relying on an originalist view of the Constitution is like relying solely on the Ten Commandments for law.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Ten Commandments did not come with a means for amending them.
If we decide to ignore the Constitution when it is too much work to amend it, we have no basis for our law other than the whim of the closest judge.
You claim to believe in Democracy, why are you so find of rule by fiat?
LikeLike
“…why are you so find of rule by fiat?”
Who said I was?
My point was simple. We need to take a serious look at our Constitution to bring it into the modern world. Not eliminate it.
The concerns of having judges decide the law is a fact of life in any organization. Interpretations of the rules will always be an issue. Let’s at least deal with modern, industrial issues that incorporate our population based on its size, makeup, and capitalism in a global economy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yet our entire regulation of both legal and illegal drugs is based on judicial expansion of the Federal power to regulate commerce between the states.
That is not a republic, it is not a democracy, it is rule by judicial fiat.
LikeLike
So let’s change that. Specificity in wording an updated Constitution should resolve many of these issues.
You can only repair and upgrade an old car but for so long.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Constitution also contains the means for calling a new convention.
DO the work, don’t take shortcuts that make the Constitution meaningless.
LikeLike
What expansion? The Commerce Clause allows for Congress to regulate interstate commerce. If Congress has passed that power to the Executive Branch (FDA falls under that), then it is up to them to take it back. But blaming the judiciary for it is inaccurate.
LikeLike
Where in Article I section 8 does Congress get the power to decide what intoxicants you use in your own home?
It is only through a ludicrous reading of the commerce clause
LikeLike
If the intoxicants are produced in one state and sold in the several others, THAT is interstate commerce.
If you make your own and want to sell them across state lines THAT is interstate commerce.
You say it is “ludicrous”; I say it is the ORIGINAL intent.
LikeLike
Nope.
The interstate commerce clause is used to justify putting you in prison for growing and using your own pot in your own home, on the justification that pot heads aren’t good workers and that interferes with interstates commerce.
The clause has been twisted beyond recognition.
LikeLike
I really didn’t think you were old enough to KNOW whether the clause has been twisted or not.
And growing pot is considered illegal by the feds, but the several states are taking that back. But if you buy it Colorado, you can be arrested for possessing it in Nebraska.
LikeLike
I love it when you make stuff up. It’s a word salad in the vein of Mr. Roberts.
Besides it is the STATES that are deciding whether it is criminal or not.
LikeLike
RE: “Relying on an originalist view of the Constitution is like relying solely on the Ten Commandments for law.”
Are you saying that both the Constitution and the Ten Commandments are disposable?
LikeLike
I have no idea why or where you got that idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We can dream.
LikeLike