"You also might want to limit the damage when things go bad by splitting things up. A huge empire ruled from a single city would seem much more likely to collapse than a collection of smaller states. (As Tainter notes, after Rome fell, Western Europe did not fall again). In the United States, that might mean maintaining the viability of state governments as independent entities. That way, if some go bankrupt (like, say, Illinois might or like Puerto Rico essentially has) the damage will be contained. And if the federal government were to collapse, the states could pick up some of the slack, limiting the damage.
Of course, in describing a limited federal government, ruling over a nation made up of semi-sovereign states, subject to the rule of law and judicial review I’m not describing anything shocking or new: That’s precisely the kind of government we in the United States are supposed to have under our Constitution.
So maybe we should keep it that way. Just in case."
Like the man says, read the whole thing.
20 comments:
Go figure, that was not an Onion article.
At least the Onion crew probably would have talked about the merits of the Articles of Confederation and how much the states, under such, were helping one another with such selfless magnanimity. You know, all for one and one for all. Just like the European Union does today. Rah!
And to think, the sovereign states were making such great progress on slavery and expanding protections for the rights of all their citizens before the frickin' Feds came stomping in with their jackbooted thugs to enforce principles encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
That Glenn Harlan Reynolds, man of genius and vision. We should all read the whole thing.
because slavery
One of the curios of the last 7 years is that the state governments (California and Illinois excepted) seem to be much more able to manage their business than the federal government (re an orderly budget process and circumscribed use of public debt). Cannot help but notice that during the financial crisis, the adults in the room were Sheila Bair and Ben Bernanke, neither of whom had the slightest connection to party politics.
There's a great deal you can accomplish re decentralization without needing constitutional amendments, but nothing is on the agenda of the Republican caucuses and the Democrats are dominated by Chuckschumerism and gotta have their fingers in every pie.
bacause the states have a horrendous legacy of abusing American ideals and rights. the club has club rules.
Once again our leftist friend proves that the left despises the Constitution and principles like enumerated powers and federalism and thus has no claim to the Founding.
Someday they'll be honest about it.
Someday people will get wise to them.
http://reformclub.blogspot.com/2016/04/why-left-has-no-reasonable-claim-to.html
And once again our rightist friend sets himself up as grantor of access to the Founding. And conveniently forgets the actual Constitution, rather than the one his imagination has constructed for his own convenience, and principles like the implied powers, as provided in the necessary and proper clause. Oh the pain it must cause our friends to the right to see the Federal government’s ability to exercise the authority to seek uniform justice and protection for the whole rather than be powerless against the potential unchecked tyranny of the states.
Not very honest.
Of course, people are already wise to them.
You're not even close. The "necessary and proper" clause applies only to the limited, enumerated powers under a federal constitution!
“The Congress shall have Power To…make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
— Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
At this point the only question is whether you're making this BS up all by yourself or parroting drivel you heard from some college teacher. If the latter, your parents should ask for their money back.
One of my high school history teachers used to push that line. He was born in 1930 or thereabouts and may still be alive.
It makes little sense, jimmyraybob, to go to the trouble of enumerating discrete powers if the commerce clause, the general welfare clause, and the elastic clause give Congress a blank check. It likewise makes no sense to append the 10th Amendment if there are not governmental activities beyond the reach of federal authorities.
While we're at it, there's New Zealand. It's a prosperous country out there in the Antipodes. It's not a member of any suprantional bodies. It has a population just north of 4 million and it's key city has a population about 1.2 million, or near that of greater Pittsburgh. A great deal of decentralization can be accomplished if you set up standing partnerships which incorporate the smaller and more sparsely populated states - one for New England, one for Mississippi and Alabama, one for Oklahoma and Arkansas, one for Utah - Idaho - Montana - Wyoming. It could be accomplished through the use of inter-state compacts.
the club has club rules.
Is that why, courtesy the federal Department of Education, state colleges are now obligated to assess young men accused of sexual assault with star chamber rules? (Or that labor relations between a restauranteur and his single-digit population of shift workers are governed by the central government's edicts)?
Thanks to Art for bringing up the Welfare Clause: the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States." I'd meant to include that but I guess I was too eager to get the coffee brewing.
Tom, as you imply I do only have an undergrad and grad degree from a state university at a time when the emphasis was on comprehension and critical thinking and not blind adherence, you know, a few years ago. So, as you comprehend, I don’t have the advantage of having studied con law at such prestigious institutions as Prager U, or Brietbart School of Law, or The Blaze.com. Fortunately for the parents, though, I worked myself through school……good times.
The necessary and proper clause, or “elastic” clause as Art notes, is one of the enumerated powers in Section 8 – a lot of anti-federal government advocates miss that and try to shuttle it to the side as something foreign. And it is, when viewed expansively a means to enable "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof," it does enable the National government to fulfill the purpose of national governing – a means to constitutional ends. Is there an enumerated power in the Constitution that gives the national government the power to provide protections for any civil rights? Would we be justified to think that there is an implicit power to establish the lofty principles in the DOI and Constitution? Or to establish uniformity of justice among all the states so that a citizen of one state can cross the border with another state and still have expectations of guaranteed rights?
Excerpt from the unanimous opinion presented by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland:
“The result of the most careful and attentive consideration bestowed upon this clause is that, if it does not enlarge, it cannot be construed to restrain, the powers of Congress, or to impair the right of the legislature to exercise its best judgment in the selection of measures to carry into execution the Constitutional powers of the Government. If no other motive for its insertion can be suggested, a sufficient one is found in the desire to remove all doubts respecting the right to legislate on that vast mass of incidental powers which must be involved in the Constitution if that instrument be not a splendid bauble.”
“We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional. ”
And, contrary to Art's objection, and as pointed out by the clause's proponents during drafting and ratification, the courts, the states and the people (via the voting franchise) are checks on abuse - not a blank check to do anything Congress wants to do.
I do only have an undergrad and grad degree from a state university at a time when the emphasis was on comprehension and critical thinking
They owe you a refund.
"You're not even close. The "necessary and proper" clause applies only to the limited, enumerated powers under a federal constitution!"
“The Congress shall have Power To…make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
— Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
You fail comprehension by blithely ignoring what the Constitution actually says--which is Reynolds' premise; you flunk "critical thinking" by not realizing that all you're doing is proving Reynolds' argument that statists like yourself ignore what the Constitution says, and prove my point that you even don't care.
As always, thank you for illustrating the problem, albeit unwittingly.
"...what the Constitution actually says...
Well Tom, maybe you were absent during the discussions on the issue at Right Wing University (moto: Where Facts & Knowledge are Buried Out Back). Or, maybe it's just not convenient to cover.
Therefore, let's review: Necessary & Proper clause debated during ratification. Some, like great great great grandpa Brietbart, didn't like it and stamped their feet and let out distressed howls of protest....and lost the debate....then tyranny occurred. Then A. Hamilton - Yeah! Let's build a strong and great nation! Then John Marshall and McCulloch v. Maryland...then more implied tyranny constitutional means to a constitutional end occurred. Then over 200 years of strong and great nation* being built...Federal government recognizes and defends civil rights of citizens - tyranny! Then Squire van Dyke, "you're a poopy head and none of this ever existed. Get your money back."
Of course, at real university it's all so much more detailed and hard and you have to know crazy things like what implicit and explicit mean and things that The Blaze School of Constitutional Law doesn't make you have to study. So hard.
But then, if I could get my money back.....sweet.
*Even the conservatives, your alleged tribe, back in the olden days used to consider this a strong and great nation. But that was back when they took on the John Birch nutters. Now we call them paleo-conservatives and wonder if future paleontologists will one day discover their bones.
Yes, we know many have ignored what the Constitution says. That's Reynolds' point.
And Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee, so all your bleating about Breitbart, et al., is just ad hominem attack--a logical fallacy--and further shows how your so-called education in "critical thinking" was either a waste or a complete fraud.
"...many have ignored what the Constitution says. That's Reynolds' point."
You, and possibly Reynolds, are certain that your reading is the only reading and that everyone else with a different reading is an idiot. Good for you (it wasn't Reynolds that I had in mind by citing Brietbart U).
However bucko, not everybody adopts your narrow view of what the Constitution "says." My point is that there are a lot of legal minds outside of Reynolds that would argue for and have argued for more expansive interpretation.
RE ad hominem: You seem to have absolutely no self awareness. Your first line of discussion always starts with an attack:
"Once again our leftist friend proves that the left despises the Constitution and principles like enumerated powers and federalism and thus has no claim to the Founding. Someday they'll be honest about it.
Talk about fraud and dishonesty.
Tu quoque isn't a logically valid argument either. You keep shooting your claim to "critical thinking" in the foot.
As for reading the Constitution, both the premise and the argument are quite plain, for the third time:
"The "necessary and proper" clause applies only to the limited, enumerated powers under a federal constitution!"
“The Congress shall have Power To…make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
— Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
All you keep doing is proving Reynolds' point that statists "interpret" the Constitution differently from what it plainly says and meant when it was ratified. You're swinging at air; nobody's fighting with you.
”Tu quoque isn't a logically valid argument either.”
Good, because that is not what happened. Pointing out inconsistencies is valid criticism. I know, I know, consistency is the hobgoblin of something something.
Speaking of, you are the first one to vociferously crap on anyone that even hints at credentialism and yet you say, “And Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee.” While I do recognize the validity of having worked hard within the higher educational system to earn advance degrees I also, having been exposed to the system, realize that inside or outside the general specialty of the advanced degree, a professor can be quite loony, both conservatively and liberally. Jon might attest.
As far as reading the constitution, you should know and probably do know that even conservative and/or libertarian constitutional scholars don’t rely on simple readings of isolated snippets of text. You can rail against me all you want but you are also railing against the likes of Madison, Hamilton, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall and a unanimous supreme court in McCulloch v. Maryland, and over 200 years of prevailing constitutional and legal tradition adding up to more than your “simple reading” hypothesis.
As to “statist,” we’re all statists quibbling over the form of the state. Well, unless you’re an anarchist with a death wish for the state.
”…for the third time…”
Endlessly repeating a flawed argument is a loser.
As to Reynold’s thesis that Rome (e.g., Roman Empire) was a strong centralized state before its “fall,” he might want to actually study some history at the public university that pays him.
Speaking of, you are the first one to vociferously crap on anyone that even hints at credentialism and yet you say, “And Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee.”
No, I neutralized your attack on me, Breitbart, The Blaze, etc., which are irrelevant to the original post and ensuing discussion. Glenn Reynolds has nothing to do with any of them.
Fallacy of irrelevance and of "poisoning the well." The "critical thinking" skills you brag about possessing are not in evidence, in fact, quite the opposite.
Of course, in describing a limited federal government, ruling over a nation made up of semi-sovereign states, subject to the rule of law and judicial review I’m not describing anything shocking or new: That’s precisely the kind of government we in the United States are supposed to have under our Constitution.
This is all that's relevant, and stands unrefuted.
Reynold’s argument refutes itself – no help needed.
And he uses as a premise a flawed understanding of Roman history. This quote is massively stupid: “after Rome fell, Western Europe did not fall again.” Which Rome? The Eastern Empire? The Western Empire? The “Roman Empire” by the time of the “fall,” obviously he must mean the Western Empire since the East stood for another Millenium, was anything but a strong centralized government – by the 6th century it had already begun the process of disintegrating into semi-sovereign states and barbarian rule. Western Europe fell into economic collapse, warfare at the hands of the Goths and Vandals, famine, disease, and illiteracy…for a Millenium. What slowly emerged was hardly what we would call a unified nation but a fractious set of principalities, kingdoms, territories, emerging city-states, Holy Roman Empires, with shifting alliances warfare, continued famine and disease – right up through the second world war. And now?
And he completely disregards the state of the “United States” under the Articles of Confederation to argue for a “United States” of fractured and predatory semi-sovereign states. Illinois goes bankrupt? Damage contained. Screw em, not our problem. Moving on. Hurricane wipes out the coast of North Carolina? Damage contained. Screw em, not our problem. Moving on. Nice E Pluribus Unum Glenn’s proposing.
I'm sure that you'll want to get in one final mindless insult but this beast has been milked.
Federalism and limited enumerated powers aren't constitutional principles? All right then.
"Truth, Sir, is a cow that will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull."
Post a Comment