Federal Vs. State Government

***Originally posted on 1/1/08***

Here's the promised follow up to my earlier post about federal vs. state government. I think most people look at the difference between the levels of government as sort of like middle management and executive management. That's how I thought of it, anyway, until recently. But that's not correct at all. It's basically yet another layer of checks and balances. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I'll try to explain it as well as I understand it myself.

The federal government has just a handful of specific things it's allowed to do in the Constitution (called enumerated powers). These things include:
- signing international treaties
- national security
- ensuring no religious test is applied to office-holders
- ensuring that no state laws violate the Constitution

There are some others, but not many. Other than that, the Constitution indicates (through the 10th Amendment) that EVERYTHING else is a power given to either the states or to individuals.

I don't usually find a whole lot of inspiration in the substitute professors at the Limbaugh Institute of Conservative Studies (that's what Rush Limbaugh affectionately calls his radio program, and he is, of course, the head instructor), but one of the subs earlier this week, Jason Lewis, talked about this very topic. He explains it in a very easy-to-understand way in the context of global warming.

Take a listen - it's only about 5 minutes.

This is a great description of the difference between the federal government and the state government. On a bigger scale, the same theories apply to national sovereignty (doing what's best for the U.S.) vs. global sovereignty (bowing to the U.N.), which Lewis also covers.

This really brings into perspective the quote about Rep. Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act - if this bill were to be passed, it would force Congress to actually govern within the powers given to the federal government by the Constitution, and that would leave them with very little.

One thing Ron Paul has right is that he would get rid of a lot of the monolithic government entities like the IRS, the FBI, the Department of Education (by the way, one of Ronald Reagan's presidential platform planks in the early 1980's was getting rid of the Dept. of Ed.), etc. that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. His foreign policy is a recipe for absolute disaster, but he is technically correct on his assertions about cutting back the size of government.

This is one of the most clear-cut differences between liberal philosophy and conservative philosophy. Liberalism wants a centralized all-powerful government that has total control over everything. It might sound nice on the surface, but as Lewis says, what happens if your political adversaries are in charge? Life sucks. On the other hand, conservatives want a more de-centralized government with more power given to the states and/or individuals. If your political adversaries run things, you can always 'vote with your feet' and go to another state.

On the global scale, that's also the biggest fundamental problem with allowing the U.N. to dictate U.S. policy. What happens if our political adversaries run things and have control of the entire world?

Exactly.

Now, keep in mind that many of these huge government programs like universal health care are irreversible. Once we start it, there's no going back - once you give the public 'free' handouts, they'll forever expect it. You don't cure a drug user without significant withdrawal pains, and some never recover from the scars. That's what ending universal health care would be like. Do you want to go through that as a country? Now, what if the current crop of liberals get their way and achieve universal health care, pre-school/kindergarten, housing assistance, food stamps, and all of the other things they've proposed (or that we're already doing)?

Just stop and think about that for a moment. What part of life wouldn't be affected? Not a single one.

That's why it's so critically important that far-left liberals don't gain power. The longer they stay there, the farther the U.S. gets down a road from which we can't come back. This is serious stuff, and has immeasurable impact on the future of our country. A little understanding of how things are supposed to be can go a long, long way to helping us preserve our system of government and way of life.

I hope you've learned as much about this critical topic as I have. I hope you put your new knowledge to good use.

There's my two cents.