- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The US Federal Government - It's Not Supposed to Expand Easily
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:22 am
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:22 am
a big picture view of all of these debates going on seem to all come back to the views of how powerful government should be, and how hard should it be to expand government. there should be no debate that our current governmental framework was established to decrease the power of the federal government. it is supposed to be difficult to pass laws, amend the constitution, etc.
there has been "gridlock" in Congress the past few years, and that is in the spirit of our governmental history. socialist-inspired statists have done everything they can to expand both the power of the federal government (via expanding the definition of the commerce clause) but also the ease of which our federal government may expand itself.
now, this is not solely for those on the "left", as the "right" uses any moral panic they can imagine to impose draconian legal systems of their own (see: the war on drugs for the best example). however, in the discussion going on right now, the "right" is trying to limit government while the "left" is trying to expand government, and getting very angry that they can't just have their way.
and this all goes back to the constitution. statists who want to expand government hate the constitution. what little remains to protect individuals (and it is very little) is absolutely detested by this ilk...even when the policy hurts them too. i'll give a great example: bill maher. he loves to talk shite about our constitution, as it was written a long time ago and doesn't allow our government to act more easily, and how it needs to be easier for the feds to act (typically for immigration and the environment). however, he hates the WOD. the irony is dripping. how did such a terrible law get passed so easily and how did it remain so powerful? uh...maybe the ease of government expansion that he's cheerleading?
the reason Obama's EO on immigration is receiving such vitriol is because the number of people who are opposed to more government expansion has grown (thanks to George Bush). it doesn't matter that previous presidents on the "other side" have expanded government, just as it doesn't matter than Nixon, a member of the "other side" started the WOD. using an EO to get around the safeguards of individuals is now a repugnant idea, and would be seen the same if a person with "GOP" by their name proposed it. the policy is unpopular, but the process is the part that is truly detestable.
people need to pull back and see the meta view of this whole argument. yes, there is gridlock, but our federal system is supposed to be primarily gridlock, with a difficult bar to stripping the rights and property of its citizenry. in the coming years, with a GOP-controlled house and senate, we're going to see more gridlock with the president using his veto power. that is a great thing. gridlock is a great thing.
...the only thing better would be actions to decrease/erode the power of the federal government
there has been "gridlock" in Congress the past few years, and that is in the spirit of our governmental history. socialist-inspired statists have done everything they can to expand both the power of the federal government (via expanding the definition of the commerce clause) but also the ease of which our federal government may expand itself.
now, this is not solely for those on the "left", as the "right" uses any moral panic they can imagine to impose draconian legal systems of their own (see: the war on drugs for the best example). however, in the discussion going on right now, the "right" is trying to limit government while the "left" is trying to expand government, and getting very angry that they can't just have their way.
and this all goes back to the constitution. statists who want to expand government hate the constitution. what little remains to protect individuals (and it is very little) is absolutely detested by this ilk...even when the policy hurts them too. i'll give a great example: bill maher. he loves to talk shite about our constitution, as it was written a long time ago and doesn't allow our government to act more easily, and how it needs to be easier for the feds to act (typically for immigration and the environment). however, he hates the WOD. the irony is dripping. how did such a terrible law get passed so easily and how did it remain so powerful? uh...maybe the ease of government expansion that he's cheerleading?
the reason Obama's EO on immigration is receiving such vitriol is because the number of people who are opposed to more government expansion has grown (thanks to George Bush). it doesn't matter that previous presidents on the "other side" have expanded government, just as it doesn't matter than Nixon, a member of the "other side" started the WOD. using an EO to get around the safeguards of individuals is now a repugnant idea, and would be seen the same if a person with "GOP" by their name proposed it. the policy is unpopular, but the process is the part that is truly detestable.
people need to pull back and see the meta view of this whole argument. yes, there is gridlock, but our federal system is supposed to be primarily gridlock, with a difficult bar to stripping the rights and property of its citizenry. in the coming years, with a GOP-controlled house and senate, we're going to see more gridlock with the president using his veto power. that is a great thing. gridlock is a great thing.
...the only thing better would be actions to decrease/erode the power of the federal government
10
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:26 am to SlowFlowPro
So our system is supposed to be one that can't do anything or fix problems that need fixing.
Awesome.
Awesome.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:57 am to SlowFlowPro
When the Constitution was adopted, there were heavy regional differences of opinion just as there are today. It took quite a bit of coaxing, assurances, and arm twisting to get everyone on board. No one seems to understand this.
You see liberals today talk about the unfairness of the senate because states like Idaho get the same influence as California. None of them want to acknowledge that this was never supposed to be a pure democracy. Many states would never have joined the Union if that were the case.
This means that some problems just don't get solved by the massive federal entity. There are limits to its power and it should be hamstrung fairly often because it was always meant to come second to the authority of the independent component states. For the federal government to act, it should have the consent of those states through representation. That representation is NOT purely based on majority opinion of the entire population of the republic.
Better minds have called this notion "Our Federalism," which enshrines the value of comity between a state, other states, and the federal government. It is "Our" federalism because it is unlike other systems that came before. Unfortunately, no one seems to like those principles today and see it only as a form of weakness. They would prefer a (more) autocratic executive.
You see liberals today talk about the unfairness of the senate because states like Idaho get the same influence as California. None of them want to acknowledge that this was never supposed to be a pure democracy. Many states would never have joined the Union if that were the case.
This means that some problems just don't get solved by the massive federal entity. There are limits to its power and it should be hamstrung fairly often because it was always meant to come second to the authority of the independent component states. For the federal government to act, it should have the consent of those states through representation. That representation is NOT purely based on majority opinion of the entire population of the republic.
Better minds have called this notion "Our Federalism," which enshrines the value of comity between a state, other states, and the federal government. It is "Our" federalism because it is unlike other systems that came before. Unfortunately, no one seems to like those principles today and see it only as a form of weakness. They would prefer a (more) autocratic executive.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 10:13 am to SlowFlowPro
Good post. One minor thing I disagree with:
Not a great thing when the gridlock is stopping the scaling back of the government.
quote:
in the coming years, with a GOP-controlled house and senate, we're going to see more gridlock with the president using his veto power. that is a great thing. gridlock is a great thing
Not a great thing when the gridlock is stopping the scaling back of the government.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
however, in the discussion going on right now, the "right" is trying to limit government while the "left" is trying to expand government, and getting very angry that they can't just have their way.
the expansion of government, largely concentrated in the executive branch, is occurring naturally, regardless of which Party is in control. Now they may expand in different areas, but its on the margins. For the most part, fiscal outlays for various policies tend to lack a lot of volatility and are fairly consistent y/y.
This post was edited on 11/20/14 at 11:16 am
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
I'm no expert but they're probably not many statist governments in history that have voluntary decreased their power.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and this all goes back to the constitution. statists who want to expand government hate the constitution.
Couldn't we say the same thing about incorporation? Wasn't the clear intent of the "founding fathers" that the Constitution would only apply to the feds and not to the states? I don't see many "non-statists" clamoring to have the 2nd Amendment fully unincorporated, e.g.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
FDR fixed all of that - most presidents (Dem and Rep) since then have followed his model to varying degrees - if only Goldwater had been elected, it might have reversed the trend.
Big government, reaching everywhere is the norm now and it was the exception, at the federal level, prior to the election of FDR.
Big government, reaching everywhere is the norm now and it was the exception, at the federal level, prior to the election of FDR.
This post was edited on 11/20/14 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 11/20/14 at 3:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
courtesy of hemphead...and God and stuff
quote:
There is also a passage from the book of Samuel that illustrates government very well,
quote:
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
Posted on 11/20/14 at 5:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
Go back to the bill of rights and look at the 10th Amendment. Nobody gives a shite about the constitution really. The founders dream of America is dead, and probably was dead before any of us were born. Now it's just every interest group for itself, whoever cries the loudest wins.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 6:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
The size and scope of the federal government has expanded under every presidential administration in your lifetime, and it will continue to do so.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News