Quote:
What you fail to understand is that none of these things are the purpose of the Federal Government.
|
These things may not be the "purpose of the Federal Government", but that isn't the question. The question is does the federal government have the powers under the Constitution to do these things. The federal government has that power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the Taxation and Spending Clause, and under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Quote:
Every single law and agency created by the Federal Government diminishes both the powers of the State and the Citizens.
|
Maybe in an ideal world state governments would have resolved all our problems and there would have been no need for federal intervention. In the real world, you have situations where some states are much poorer than other states, some states have long histories of tolerating racial discrimination, and states in which certain special interests totally dominate their politics thus preventing any reform.
I'm much less interested in "states' rights" than I am in individual rights. States are not living, breathing organisms.
Quote:
It borders on insanity to really believe the Federal Government is a superior protector of the rights of citizens than local or state governments.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court has been corrupted and bought out by Corporate America to the same extent as the other branches of Federal Government, as can be seen by their ruling to give corporations rights superior to citizens.
|
The federal government is not a "superior protector of the rights of citizens". Its the protector of those rights by default. Too many states dropped the ball when they had a chance to fix problems years ago. Ask an older African American person how interested the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina were in eliminating racial segregation and promoting equal employment opportunity for their black citizens in the past. More recent examples of what I am talking about were schools that refused to make opportunities available to girls to participate in any sport, but cheerleading because that wasn't "ladylike".
The other problem that the "states' rights" crowd fails to understand is that some problems are truly national or even international. Water and air pollution do not stop at any state line. Tell me how many states the Ohio River flows through? It used to be a very polluted waterway. That's why we need a federal EPA and not environmental efforts by fifty separate states.
Go ahead and rant all day long about the way corporations have "corrupted the Supreme Court". It doesn't change a thing.
Quote:
If you would prefer to live in a monarchy or a dictatorship, then by all means, please move to a country where that kind of government already exists.
The United States was created to be a representative Republic and to maintain power within the States and the Citizens.
Power has been illegally usurped by the Federal Government for far too long, and it is time now to take back that power, and place it where it rightly belongs, with the States and the People.
|
Here we have one more silly right wing tirade that focuses on emotion and doesn't take into account either history or the real facts. I have actually studied Constitutional Law and I have read the US Supreme Court's decisions and its rationale for allowing the federal government to act in many areas. You might take a look at the following supreme court cases: Wickard v. Filburn; US v. Darby Lumber Company; and the NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Company. If you want have a real debate, read these cases and come back here. Until you do that your rambling on about 'corporate corruption" sounds pretty dumb.
Finally, if someone is going to move and leave this country because they don't accept the system, you would seem the logical choice. Under our system, the Supreme Court has picked my interpretation of the law over yours. That's the way things work in America. Some people tell me Brazil is looking like a very promising country these days.