The Complete History of Tyranny in America 1815-Today

[carlfense]

Here is the difference: When power is concentrated in one central (federal) govt - the opportunity is greater for corruption and much greater corruption as it has the potential to affect a whole nation. The genius of federalism and having the power shared with the states is that the concentration of power now moves from 1 location to 51 (including DC). While it is true that the opportunity for corruption can occur in a number of states, the impact is not nearly as great - only affecting those states. I think one of the failures of the past 100 years of politics is our inability as a country to maintain a truely federal system of govt- the sharing of power. The federal govt has used the power of the purse to cause states to 'submit' to its will - thus upsurping the 10th amendment power of states. The opportunity for 'absolute corruption' has increased as power has become more central.

That's not a change that happened in the past 100 years . . . it has always been in the Constitution.

 

Some people disagreed about 150 years ago. That didn't go well.

Huh? The federal government has exploded in the last 100 years (mostly post WW1) and has had a much greater influence (both good and bad) on the daily lives of citizens. I don't think it's crazy to suggest this isn't what the founders envisioned.

I didn't say that the federal government hasn't grown. I meant that federal law trumps state law. Supremacy clause. Etc.

 

We've had this fight. A lot of people died.

[Saunders]

Here is the difference: When power is concentrated in one central (federal) govt - the opportunity is greater for corruption and much greater corruption as it has the potential to affect a whole nation. The genius of federalism and having the power shared with the states is that the concentration of power now moves from 1 location to 51 (including DC). While it is true that the opportunity for corruption can occur in a number of states, the impact is not nearly as great - only affecting those states. I think one of the failures of the past 100 years of politics is our inability as a country to maintain a truely federal system of govt- the sharing of power. The federal govt has used the power of the purse to cause states to 'submit' to its will - thus upsurping the 10th amendment power of states. The opportunity for 'absolute corruption' has increased as power has become more central.

That's not a change that happened in the past 100 years . . . it has always been in the Constitution.

 

Some people disagreed about 150 years ago. That didn't go well.

Huh? The federal government has exploded in the last 100 years (mostly post WW1) and has had a much greater influence (both good and bad) on the daily lives of citizens. I don't think it's crazy to suggest this isn't what the founders envisioned.

I didn't say that the federal government hasn't grown. I meant that federal law trumps state law. Supremacy clause. Etc.

 

We've had this fight. A lot of people died.

I'd argue that Federal law trumps state law only when its convenient.

[carlfense]

I'd argue that Federal law trumps state law only when its convenient.

Eh?

[TGHusker]

Here is the difference: When power is concentrated in one central (federal) govt - the opportunity is greater for corruption and much greater corruption as it has the potential to affect a whole nation. The genius of federalism and having the power shared with the states is that the concentration of power now moves from 1 location to 51 (including DC). While it is true that the opportunity for corruption can occur in a number of states, the impact is not nearly as great - only affecting those states. I think one of the failures of the past 100 years of politics is our inability as a country to maintain a truely federal system of govt- the sharing of power. The federal govt has used the power of the purse to cause states to 'submit' to its will - thus upsurping the 10th amendment power of states. The opportunity for 'absolute corruption' has increased as power has become more central.

That's not a change that happened in the past 100 years . . . it has always been in the Constitution.

 

Some people disagreed about 150 years ago. That didn't go well.

Carl, not sure I follow your 1st statement. Federalism has always been in the Constitution - that I do agree. But states had greater power and freedom than you see today. Yes the Civil War was a huge federal/state issue. But you have to look beyond it. The issue of slavery should not have been allowed to continue under the constitution - esp in light of the bill of rights. However, it was the one compromise that the northern states agreed to in order to quaranty the ratification of the Constitution. If you remove that compromise and slavery was abolished in 1789 and all of the states had joined the union - then you would have had a total different view of Federal/State rights. As it is, the slavery issue had to be dealt with and with the dealing of it, the Federal govt became stronger and the states weaker. If the Constitutional Convention could have come up with a different solution than allowing slavery to continue - then the 10th Amendment would have maintain a stronger role in our system of gov't . The price of the 'compromise' was the civil war and long term, states rights. During the last 100 years, beginning with FDR we have seen more and more errosion of what should have been a balance between state and federal govts. Perhaps, with the population growth and the demands of a more modern global society, the ideal balance of power may have been difficult if not impossible to maintain.

[carlfense]

Carl, not sure I follow your 1st statement. Federalism has always been in the Constitution - that I do agree. But states had greater power and freedom than you see today. Yes the Civil War was a huge federal/state issue. But you have to look beyond it. The issue of slavery should not have been allowed to continue under the constitution - esp in light of the bill of rights. However, it was the one compromise that the northern states agreed to in order to quaranty the ratification of the Constitution. If you remove that compromise and slavery was abolished in 1789 and all of the states had joined the union - then you would have had a total different view of Federal/State rights. As it is, the slavery issue had to be dealt with and with the dealing of it, the Federal govt became stronger and the states weaker. If the Constitutional Convention could have come up with a different solution than allowing slavery to continue - then the 10th Amendment would have maintain a stronger role in our system of gov't . The price of the 'compromise' was the civil war and long term, states rights. During the last 100 years, beginning with FDR we have seen more and more errosion of what should have been a balance between state and federal govts. Perhaps, with the population growth and the demands of a more modern global society, the ideal balance of power may have been difficult if not impossible to maintain.

Not much ambiguity here:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Someone]

Corruption, or the oportunity for it isn't the unique provence of big government.

 

If, as you say, government is corrupt, than the change of corruption (which is at 100%) doesn't increase with size.

 

More state and local control means more state and local corruption. More federal control means more federal corruption.

 

How do you know that government corruption "will only get worse"?

If you are as religious as you claim, then i don't know why you're even asking the question.

If we understand the principle of 'evil' - man's ability to do wrong, hurt others, for one's own selfish gain, we should understand that evil consentrated (power itself isn't evil - the abuse of power is - power or authority under accountability is how 'things get done') will have the greatest impact - cause the greatest harm. This doesn't mean that centralized power will automatically be abusive - it won't if it remains accountable - however, once accountability is lost (states rights diminished) then the opportunity for greater abuse is realized. The history of mankind reveals this very fact. Despots gain control of a govt, grab control and before long people are suffering, killed and individual rights are trambled on.

This is funny given that whole states rights vs. federal rights conflict that cropped up between the North and South over a topic known as slavery.

 

Clearly the Civil War is a perfect example of states rights getting diminished resulting in people suffering and individual rights trampled on.

[strigori]

Corruption, or the oportunity for it isn't the unique provence of big government.

 

If, as you say, government is corrupt, than the change of corruption (which is at 100%) doesn't increase with size.

 

More state and local control means more state and local corruption. More federal control means more federal corruption.

 

How do you know that government corruption "will only get worse"?

If you are as religious as you claim, then i don't know why you're even asking the question.

If we understand the principle of 'evil' - man's ability to do wrong, hurt others, for one's own selfish gain, we should understand that evil consentrated (power itself isn't evil - the abuse of power is - power or authority under accountability is how 'things get done') will have the greatest impact - cause the greatest harm. This doesn't mean that centralized power will automatically be abusive - it won't if it remains accountable - however, once accountability is lost (states rights diminished) then the opportunity for greater abuse is realized. The history of mankind reveals this very fact. Despots gain control of a govt, grab control and before long people are suffering, killed and individual rights are trambled on.

This is funny given that whole states rights vs. federal rights conflict that cropped up between the North and South over a topic known as slavery.

 

Clearly the Civil War is a perfect example of states rights getting diminished resulting in people suffering and individual rights trampled on.

Am I reading this right? You are defending the South in regards to slavery and the civil war?

[Saunders]

I'd argue that Federal law trumps state law only when its convenient.

Eh?

Off the top of my head...

 

The Department of Justice’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged. In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. The Department of Justice is reviewing the ballot initiatives and has no additional comment at this time.

 

Link

 

Bascially, "we're gonna let this play out instead of enforcing the law."

[Someone]

Corruption, or the oportunity for it isn't the unique provence of big government.

 

If, as you say, government is corrupt, than the change of corruption (which is at 100%) doesn't increase with size.

 

More state and local control means more state and local corruption. More federal control means more federal corruption.

 

How do you know that government corruption "will only get worse"?

If you are as religious as you claim, then i don't know why you're even asking the question.

If we understand the principle of 'evil' - man's ability to do wrong, hurt others, for one's own selfish gain, we should understand that evil consentrated (power itself isn't evil - the abuse of power is - power or authority under accountability is how 'things get done') will have the greatest impact - cause the greatest harm. This doesn't mean that centralized power will automatically be abusive - it won't if it remains accountable - however, once accountability is lost (states rights diminished) then the opportunity for greater abuse is realized. The history of mankind reveals this very fact. Despots gain control of a govt, grab control and before long people are suffering, killed and individual rights are trambled on.

This is funny given that whole states rights vs. federal rights conflict that cropped up between the North and South over a topic known as slavery.

 

Clearly the Civil War is a perfect example of states rights getting diminished resulting in people suffering and individual rights trampled on.

Am I reading this right? You are defending the South in regards to slavery and the civil war?

Sort of--but only if you believe "states rights diminished" = "individual rights are trambled on"

 

I was pointing out that the Civil War was 180 degrees from what TG says the history of mankind shows us.

[TGHusker]

Someone - what do you mean by this statement? I don't follow you.

 

I was pointing out that the Civil War was 180 degrees from what TG says the history of mankind shows us.

[Someone]

This is funny given that whole states rights vs. federal rights conflict that cropped up between the North and South over a topic known as slavery.

 

Clearly the Civil War is a perfect example of states rights getting diminished resulting in people suffering and individual rights trampled on.

 

Any questions?

[Saunders]

This is funny given that whole states rights vs. federal rights conflict that cropped up between the North and South over a topic known as slavery.

 

Clearly the Civil War is a perfect example of states rights getting diminished resulting in people suffering and individual rights trampled on.

 

Any questions?

 

This doesn't mean that centralized power will automatically be abusive - it won't if it remains accountable - however, once accountability is lost (for example: states rights diminished) then the opportunity for greater abuse is realized. The history of mankind reveals this very fact. Despots gain control of a govt, grab control and before long people are suffering, killed and individual rights are trambled on.

 

Your example is a non sequitur. And contrary to your (incorrect) opinion, it's an established fact (see almost every empire in history), and something that the founding fathers were very aware of.

[Someone]

This is funny given that whole states rights vs. federal rights conflict that cropped up between the North and South over a topic known as slavery.

 

Clearly the Civil War is a perfect example of states rights getting diminished resulting in people suffering and individual rights trampled on.

 

Any questions?

 

This doesn't mean that centralized power will automatically be abusive - it won't if it remains accountable - however, once accountability is lost (for example: states rights diminished) then the opportunity for greater abuse is realized. The history of mankind reveals this very fact. Despots gain control of a govt, grab control and before long people are suffering, killed and individual rights are trambled on.

 

Your example is a non sequitur. And contrary to your (incorrect) opinion, it's an established fact (see almost every empire in history), and something that the founding fathers were very aware of.

and that is why are Gov isn't like almost every empire in history.

[The Dude]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULAfBllREZs

[Saunders]

This is funny given that whole states rights vs. federal rights conflict that cropped up between the North and South over a topic known as slavery.

 

Clearly the Civil War is a perfect example of states rights getting diminished resulting in people suffering and individual rights trampled on.

 

Any questions?

 

This doesn't mean that centralized power will automatically be abusive - it won't if it remains accountable - however, once accountability is lost (for example: states rights diminished) then the opportunity for greater abuse is realized. The history of mankind reveals this very fact. Despots gain control of a govt, grab control and before long people are suffering, killed and individual rights are trambled on.

 

Your example is a non sequitur. And contrary to your (incorrect) opinion, it's an established fact (see almost every empire in history), and something that the founding fathers were very aware of.

and that is why are Gov isn't like almost every empire in history.

Only because we have not yet reached that point.