by Missouri State Rep. Ed Emery, Joplin Independent
It is federal, because it is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals, that is, by what is usually called, a social compact.To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or Nation.
–John C. Calhoun
Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, a group of men from states with different ideas and strengths convened to design a new form of civil government. Federalism emerged as the compact that became the U.S. Constitution. Federalism provided the protection of a central government while protecting the individualism and creativity of each state.
Delegates from the colonies engaged in lengthy debate and settled on what powers they would relinquish to a central government. Everything else they left to the states to decide and govern separately.
The 10th Amendment became the codification of such an understanding: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Federalism was the ideal model for improvement because it acknowledged each state as a laboratory of ideas. No state had a monopoly on good public policy. States retained autonomy over education, business, religion, over how to address healthcare or poverty.
None of these issues were debated to consensus as a part of the Compact, so the federation was granted no power over them. Such a system of government fosters experimentation and change. It is the governing structure of entrepreneurs, pioneers, and idealists.
A national government, on the other hand is the opposite of federalism. It reduces statehood to geography and fosters political posturing and prejudice. Such a governing structure is designed to protect and promote the status quo.
It is by nature a hindrance to change because there are no “state-laboratories,” no places to test new ideas or debunk old ones. Once nationalized, public policy becomes the best by default, not by performance.
Washington D.C. is actively indoctrinating America away from federalism and toward a nationalistic government – one size fits all. We must not stand idly by and allow Missouri to be swept up into failed public policies against our will just because a political elite demands that we conform.
America did not begin as a nation of conformists, nor will it survive as such.
America’s exceptionalism is rooted in individualism and the free flow of competing ideas, not in the genius of a monarch. As Missourians and Americans we must remember our roots, actively defend our Constitution(s), and promote Missouri ideas via our state legislative process. I believe Missourians do not want California, New York, or Chicago deciding our policies or our fate.
All that one size fits all solutions give us is conflict. I guess it fits right in line with what Sun Tzu wrote about so long ago – divide and conquer.
As long as the power-mongers in DC keep us fighting amongst ourselves over national policy decisions, we’re conquered – and their power will continue to grow.
“A national government, on the other hand is the opposite of federalism”
That’s just what we have now!!
Well said Michael Boldin, I think that’s basically the crux of most all of our political problems. Too much power in the hands of too few people. Too many issues in each Federal Election with-which to divide and conquer the population, in the end nobody is truly happy. As Everyone loses more then they gain.
“Federalism was the ideal model for improvement because it acknowledged each state as a laboratory of ideas. No state had a monopoly on good public policy. States retained autonomy over education, business, religion, over how to address healthcare or poverty.”
This is a very eloquent description. Even state-run health care advocates should be able to see that competition, even amongst government programs in the 50 states would drive innovation.
This self imposing, and soon to be forever uncontrollable central government is pushing our republic beyond the restraining point, where further compromises will only serve to amplify this eventual annihilation of our own state governments to this general vortex that is creating its own suppositions, and afterwards reducing our republic, to its own conclusions.
The power of this whirlwind will continue to grow until our precious republic has been conquered.
JMB – it’s almost as if the republic has already been conquered. from within. But, I’m right with you there….we need to turn things around before they get even worse.
My opinion is that this problem comes from the fact that our members of Congress are not like us. They enjoy great pay and benefits and are constantly barraged by special interests with fine wine, steak dinners and operas.
They suggest they understand us, but they have long lost that understanding. The only path to an office like that is, in most cases, one that is laden with gifts and freebies galore.
If the roles were reversed, and state governments had all the power, there are many populous states that would, IMO, suffer the same types of problems.
I think this problem of a screwed-up federal government is not a geographic problem as much as it is a human problem. This, of course, is no defense to Congress. It still needs to be shredded of its power.
I think any contemplation of an effective remedy must include an ability to recognize the human fallacies that have driven this unfortunate evolution of control and stupidity.
The privileged know no bounds other than their power and their privilege. It is very difficult to strip the privilege, as it is obvious they use their power to obtain the resources, coupled with sufficient pandering, to purchase election victories. The vote is not very effective. If history has not proven that, then, this latest change in partisan control certainly should. What “change” has really come? What “change” is really expected to come? Obviously, it depends on what one considers to be change. But if you are for limited government, you will not see change under any party. Each party wants more power – not less.
Therefore, the answer, in fact, lies in force. Michael doesn’t like it, but it is true. What is nullification, if it is not an act of force?
Therefore, I believe we should be examining the other types of force which might be available. I do not believe there will be a “gentlemanly” resolve to this problem. I believe the required change, if it is to come, will come swiftly and with great force. Not necessarily violent, but not without a tense stand-off.
I agree Jeff.
Decisions made by state lawmakers, who in many cases have a ‘day job’ as well, strike me as far more in touch with what I need than some DC type who is surrounded by people seeking to gain influence through ‘gifts’.
I disagree, as I can only fathom how much a lawyer would cost me, for every time I needed a legislator to represent my concerns, which is my constitutional right.
Lol, I think I just miss read what you just said Bryce.
Just goes to show you the real problem though.
The legislators in DC think that it is their lawyers who represent us.
Jefferson Davis was right. As everyone should know, the victor gets the spoils. Anyone who knows anything about Jefferson Davis knows he was accused of treason but never went to trial on the charge. The reason is simple. He understood the constitution, he saw the federal government as overbearing and exercising rights inimical to the peoples freedom and he decided the tyranny was too much to allow. So he decided to fight. Unfortuantely, the ruse is that the Civil War was over slavery. While tht was an issue, it wasn't the only issue; States rights and thei right to defend themselves against an overbearing federal entity was. Read the history. It's revealing. It's also history you don't get taught in public schools.