Comments on: Constitutional Avoidance: Then and Now

By: Brian McCandliss

Brian McCandliss — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:56:06 +0000

Prof. Natelson, are you willing to go on record as saying that every state was a sovereign nation even after ratifyign the Constitution? It seems that no professor of law is willing to do this, despite glaring evidence; and I can only attribute this uniform unreasoning lockstep, to personal and professional cowardice on the part of all who conform to this illegitimate federal policy which has held professional sway since the Lincoln Administration.
I find this to be a disgrace, since such a position entails a responsibility to the People, to the faith of one's convictions– not one's own personal advancement. All persons in such positions, should either stand up– or stand down.

By: Brian McCandliss

Brian McCandliss — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:02:11 +0000

The USA is thus an illegal "empire-by-proxy," and exists by virtue of distorions of history, taken as fact.

Once we realize the ACTUAL facts– i.e. that the states ARE popularly sovereign nations, and that the USA is simply a FEDERAL REPUBLIC of them, with no power OVER them– then by law, this national sovereignty MUST be recognized and accorded those states and the People thereof.

By: Brian McCandliss

Brian McCandliss — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:53 +0000

The REAL problem is, that while the People of the states solved the Confedeation-problems by DELEGATING autority to the federal government via the Constitution, this has has become SOVEREIGN NATIONAL authority which can never be taken AWAY from it– that's what "the Civil War" was all about, i.e. ensuring that no People of any state could EVER say "no" to the federal government EVER AGAIN.
And ironically, this was done in the name of "government of the people, by the people and for the people–" as in "People's Republic of CHINA," since it was accomplished through pure tyranny and censorship.

WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, have got to TAKE BACK our sovereignty as sovereign ruling citizens, of free and independent NATIONS– NOT as SUBJECTS of a SINGLE nation called the "USA."

By: Brian McCandliss

Brian McCandliss — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:26 +0000

Politicians haven't changed much– and neither have lawyers, as Mr. Natelson proves when he says that "it's going to take some fundamental change to deal with modern congressional irresponsibility — probably a constitutional amendment or two."

I.e. the solution is simply MORE LAWS– because if the federal officials don't obey the Constitution and laws we have NOW, then they'll obey MORE laws, right?

WRONG. The only law we need is MURPHY'S: i.e. if they CAN disobey laws, they WILL.

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:19:43 +0000

The Geographical and popular size and diversity of the United States is a major problem for any centralized government to implement any kind of program that works directly with and is on some level depended upon the people of the same. In general the more centralized a government is (and thus the more distant it is from the people it governs) the easier it is for the people at the micro-level to exploit and abuses that government as it becomes much harder for the same one government to manage and deal with all the people.

There is a certain efficiency to scale but that efficiency only goes so far as generally such efficiency presupposes a generally uniform nature of the relevant operations and tendency of the smaller sub units thus allowing effectively parallel(scale able) command operations and management.

This does not work so well when each of the smaller sub units are intelligently, competitively, and independently interacting such as human beings do in regard to what you call “social programs.”

or any thing with the capability and predisposition to make unique choices and/or conclusions in a non-uniform manner, requires specialized responses for interactions and management. This requiring a specialized response by the "manager" which of course takes away from the efficiency gains of size. In fact systems organized to function in such a way tend to be less efficient due to in ability of the central controller to deal with so many different problems individually, and the in effectiveness of their general orders.

So yes The United States Federal government cant do theses things even as effectively, as the smaller(closer to fewer people) European governments.

This is not a failing of the federal government indeed it was known to be the case when our federation was formed, and many different barriers were put into place in order to help prevent the same Central government from ever assuming such a roll, a roll which it was never suited to carry out. Chief among them is the U.S. Constitution and it’s extremely limited and enumerated powers.

Insolently the main problem with centralized government is not its efficiency or lack their of, but rather its dis-proportioned power over the people it rules and thus dis-proportioned capability to bring tyranny upon them.

So to be quite frank with you theses efficiency, corruption, and effectiveness problems should be the least of your concerns when dealing with such a government, as they are far from the most serous of problems to arise out of such a government.

By: A_pen

A_pen — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:19:43 +0000

The costs of living are controlled in a free market by the supply and demand principle. Government has no business enabling a business to ignore the purchasing power of the people. Case in point, the development of drugs at our expense are marketed cheaper abroad, paid for by our tax dollars in the form of aid to developing nations, while we pay more for the drugs and the tax gift on top of it all.. The government should require the prices to be equal at least and the pharmaceutical and insurance industries should be unable to diversify in order to evade market pressures. The same with every large corp. NO aid by government.US based NGOs only and funded by a limited tax deductible contribution. Life being good is an incentive to work toward being better not lowering everyone to an equal point of suffering. If your people live in a desert don't expect us to pay for food and AC because you can't compete economically. Leave, learn or starve like nature teaches.

By: Paul Armes

Paul Armes — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:18:06 +0000

The term "better" may be defined by a government bureaucrat who by virtue of his or her superiority may declare their beneficence by law.

By: Brutus

Brutus — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:35:55 +0000

To chime in here:
Putting aside the economic reasons why socialized healthcare won't work, I have no problem with a group, community, or ward establishing a socialistic community. Of course, as Mike said, this would be a state issue; however, that still does't sit well with me. I believe government should be as local as possible, ideally at the individual level. With that in mind, the most important issues facing people should be as close to them as possible. With just one catch: don't force others into a system they did not sign up for.
This is why I follow the lead of Jefferson and his "wards" plan. The size and scope of our country, I believe, has been a detriment to liberty and republican government. Numerous states can be divided into two's, three's, four's, ect., and major cities can be their own states( All competing which eachother). This is what I believe will solve our crisis.

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:29:51 +0000

I'll join with Mike's opinion and also add one fundamental question:

Even if it is "better," why should that mean we should be forced to do it? Getting a law degree is better than getting no degree; yet, we don't force people to go to law school. Eating a 2,000 calorie diet is better than eating a 3,500 calorie diet; yet, we do not force a 2,000 calorie diet by legislating one.

So, you should consider that this is not just about what might be arguably "better." It is about whether the government should be able to force its version of "better" on the people. In some regards, government is given authority to do just that, but it has no authority to foist "better" health care on the people.

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:02:10 +0000

First of all, what you consider "better" is subjective. Secondly, in order to make a real comparison, you'll need to provide an example of a country with a similar size and population of the U.S. that has a "better" system. Third, it's a misnomer that many of the countries around the world have a more socialized medical system. the fact is, The US government is more involved in health care than in many industrialized countries. That means, those that are "better" actually have less government involvement, or a more socialized system over a much smaller area. And, most importantly, if we are to have any respect for the constitution and the rule of law, there is no authority from the founders or ratifiers to create a federally-run health care system for the entire country. States are a different matter. But, if the past 8+ years taught us anything, it should have taught us that we need to demand that the federal government follow the "rules" no matter what excuse they'd like to give us.