I can certainly understand why people would want almost everything that isn't expressly written in the constitution to be governed by the states because I get the feeling the federal government isn't really being checked by anything at this point. Unfortunately I can also understand that the population as a whole might not have the collective intelligence to make that work without the occasional state wanting to teach about the magical doings of Jesus in school. Walrus mentions the right to privacy but I don't find it likely that any state is going to implement any measures to invade privacy any more-so than the federal government has already done with things like the patriot act; could be wrong I suppose, don't know who'd vote for it though.
I would be surprised if there'd be any republicans who disagree with the premise of a more state-centric government. Though I suppose a lot of them just use that "small government" mantra because it sounds good. It does annoy me that Romney's a "small government" republican who wants to overstep states rights in regards to medical cannabis... doesn't sound like small government to me.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
I mean, the first amendment, for example, says there should be no law abridging the right to free speech. Does that mean it should not be illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater, or to engage in libel or slander? Taking the constitution completely at it's word and not interpreting it's meaning is bizarre, at least to me. Even originalists interpret.
I have read the Federal Papers, actually. And the anti-Federalist papers. This was in high school, mind you, but I still have the books and every time I look at them I think "why the **** did I keep these?" Then right after I think, "I should probably read these again." But then I don't.You are right though, I would say that use of fuels, soft drinks, or setting forth a curriculum for schools (outside of setting very basic standards that constitute acceptable minimum levels of achievement) is none of the federal government's business. The federal government has a critical role in this Republic but state's rights and their unique but limited sovereignty is also critical. Read the "Federalist Papers" and you will see that this balance has been argued for the entire history of our country and resolving these arguments was crucial to getting ratification for the constitution. It is still critical for maintaining our Republic.
Last edited by TheWalrus; 10-18-2012 at 08:57 PM.