|
On Central Government vs. Local Self-Rule
If you think the Founding Fathers got anything wrong--please advocate changing the U.S. Constitution in the proper way: amend it! Do not treat it as a "living document" or it will come alive, grab you around the throat and throttle you to death.
The problem with the central government is that it is far removed from the states and, especially since the 17th Amendment, very hard to make change there initiated by the states or the people.
The huge advantage enjoyed by the citizenry of a state is that, when organized and active, they CAN AND DO make a difference. On the other hand, we'd probably have to have a French Revolution to make a difference in D.C. now.
The levels of government closest to the people are, generally speaking, those most easily changed by an active electorate with leaders willing to take up a cause. I like to bring up the excellent example of the SC Grassroots Gun Rights organization which was formed to give people the right to defend themselves when in public. Mission pretty much accomplished but they still remain vigilant.
The rights-robbing Supreme Court has come in riding a white horse in many circumstances to step between citizens and their states. There are VERY few situations where they're authorized by the U.S. Constitution, as amended, to do that. Almost every time they have, they've robbed states of important checks on central tyranny.
What many perceive as local "tyranny" is inevitable to some small degree. Different levels of control appeal to different mindsets. It takes a really open mind to understand that, for example in the case of abortion (which should legally be solely up to the individual states to decide upon) the central government's stepping in and forcing the states to legalize abortion is as abhorrent to a lot of folks as would be legalizing infanticide.
Should folks in a state who are against abortion not be able to decide for themselves on the matter? Lack of such self-determination from a central government is tyranny with very few resolutions available. And the same power to enforce legalization of abortion can be used to absolutely forbid it in all the states.
According to the Constitution, we should have a choice of 50 different takes on abortion and a host of other laws, lifestyles, and social issues with which to vote for and against WITH OUR FEET.
When the central government takes away choice, it's akin to their practicing censorship (also not a power of the FEDERAL government) arbitrarily deciding what sort of speech is correct whereas the states have the power to censor obscenity, make laws concerning slander and libel, etc. if they want.
As for those who rail against religion "infiltrating" our laws and our culture, according to our supreme law, we the people in the states (NOT at the Federal level) have the power to establish a state religion! Shocking but true.
I doubt any state would actually pass a law dictating a state religion--Thomas Jefferson was plainly relieved when VA did not but in the same breath acknowledged the rights of states to do so. Two or three states had state religions when admitted into the Union. However, in today's world of radical religious extremists, it would be handy for some states to be able to outlaw witchcraft, Mohammedism, Hinduism, and other sociopathic idol worshipping perversions passing themselves off as religion.
Sound radical? You bet it is! Our Founding Fathers were radicals of the first order. But again, if you want to change it and legally invoke a central tyranny, start advocating for an amendment to the Constitution.
For every allegation of sin that is leveled against state and local governments in the past or present, I can point out states where such was not the case and the with a couple of exceptions, if the Federalis interfered, it was to the detriment of the consent of the governed and self-rule enjoyed in other states.
If states' rights were respected as they should be according to the supreme law of the land, there would be no "war on drugs" and medical marijuana and such would be allowed in some states while still forbidden in others. In my humble opinion, only an excessively rigid mindset would have a problem with this sort of solution to controversial issues.
Can a rational human being really be against the people of the states not being able to rule themselves except where certain, very limited powers have been delegated to the central government?
Consent of the governed and self-rule include the unknown and potential for a wee bit of anarchy or, on the other hand, excessive regulations (as long as a republican form of government is maintained). I'd rather have a choice of which extremes to suffer rather than suffer virtual slavery in a world heading quickly towards universal fascism.
wtc
|
