We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Yes, depoliticizing the judiciary and toning down our confirmation process is a laudable goal, but that’ll happen only when judges go back to judging rather than bending over backward to ratify the constitutional abuses of the other branches.
The judiciary needs to once again hold politicians’—and bureaucrats’—feet to the constitutional fire by rejecting overly broad legislation of dubious constitutional warrant, thus curbing administrative-agency overreach and putting the ball back in Congress’s court. And by returning power back to the states, and the people. After all, the separation of powers and federalism exist not as some dry exercise in Madisonian political theory but as a means to that singular end of protecting our freedom.
These structural protections are the framers’ best stab at answering the eternal question of how you empower government to secure liberty while also building internal controls for self-policing. Or, as Madison famously put it in Federalist 51: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men [because men aren’t angels], the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
The reason we have these heated court battles is that the federal government is simply making too many decisions at a national level for such a large, diverse, and pluralistic country. There’s no more reason that there needs to be a one-size-fits-all health-care system, for example, than that zoning laws must be uniform in every city. Let federal legislators make the hard calls about truly national issues such as defense or interstate commerce, but let states and localities make most of the decisions that affect our daily lives. Let Texas be Texas, California be California, and Ohio be Ohio. That’s ultimately the only way we’re going to defuse tensions in Washington, whether in the halls of Congress or in the marble palace of the highest court in the land.
There's no way to balance Federal and State objectives by "granting" certain powers to a central government. It just doesn't work. As an example, consider the current conflict between State and Federal marijuana laws; and also the illegal money printing.
The real solution is to break the country into about five autonomous regions; each with the power to issue its own currency. Those regions will still cooperate of course, but people will be given a choice as to which political system they would prefer. I assume that the voters in each region would choose a different tax structure. And the five regions would have to compete with each other, to offer a better quality of life.
These are great arguments, but the Left doesn't want any of those things. It wants all their ideas and policies to be made mandatory. They have no use for letting the states be the states.
As long as the Left wants to be the totalitarian party, I don't see how this gets fixed.
It would be hard enough to fix anyway, given that we are appointing fallible men and not angels to the Supreme Court. Even without the pressure from the political parties, the temptation to legislate from the bench must be very powerful.
All well and true. But these things were settled permanently starting back in the 1930s, when American voters cast their ballots for a large federal government four times in succession: 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944.
Then along comes LBJ in the 1960s to cement the deal and create a permanent underclass with his Great Society. Today's adminustrative state ( = Deep State) settled into permanence then, although it was implicit from the beginnings of the Progressive Project in the late 1800s.
Will the Court allow Congress to pass gun control laws that regulate intrastate gun sales? We're likely to find out soon. Will they allow Congress to ban semi automatic guns? Will they ever ban TSA from feeling up all the aircraft passengers? I'm not confident that they have the spine to do so...but they sure have the opportunity to do so.
Under the expansive reading of the lamentable Wickard decision, as soon as the first firearm crossed the state line between Delaware and Maryland the day after the Constitution was ratified, Congress gained the ability to regulate the manufacture, sale, and even possession of any firearm within the borders of any state for all time under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Another Guy named Dan
No law should be constructed in legalese. Every law should have clear meaning, not undisputed but clear, meaning to the reasonable person. And every law and every paragraph of the Constitution should be interpreted by the reasonable person standard. I submit that no reasonable person would have rendered a Wickard v Filburn or Roe v Wade opinion. Those opinions took lawyers to twist the language and legal tradition to come up with rights and powers not explicitly or implicitly stated in the Constitution.
If we are looking to assign blame, find a mirror. We get the kind of government we deserve by voting (or not) and then doing little else to ensure the elected official is doing what they were sent there to do - and nothing else. It's amazing how coherent demands from an organized group of focused constituents can capture the full attention of professional ward heelers and career public servants both. In some cases, these are good people who need direction and are just guessing what their constituents want. The Tea Party experiment proved that it is possible to influence national politics - it just petered out as most grass roots efforts do.
I don't see that the idea of the Tea Party is dead and buried. I supported the Tea Party and when Trump ran in the primary I immediately backed him. He's not a politician just as the Tea Party was looking for citizen politicians so we got one in Trump. When Trump goes that does not end getting rid of the profession politicians who run primarily to feast on the taxpayer trough. The profession politician may be hoping that Trump is one and done but they really don't understand the Tea party/ Trump voter.