4 ms·
One thing that is missing from this discussion is the difference between the situation we find ourselves in and our country as designed. The US was designed to
by lzw 16y ago
One thing that is missing from this discussion is the difference between the situation we find ourselves in and our country as designed. The US was designed to be a federation of states, in fact, it was created as a confederation. The constitutional congress did create a central federal government, but it created one with a strict limit on its powers in the enumerated powers clause, and was only passed with an additional 10 amendments, all of which explicitly removes powers from the federal government that it wasn't granted in the body of the document, but that the holdouts wanted to make absolutely sure where held for the states and the individuals.
In the time since the writing of the constitution, the federal government has grown in power, and now is in complete violation of the constitution. %99 of the activities, or more, are illegal under the constitution.
This is the massive centralization of power that the founders attempted to avoid.
Talking about lobbyists having too much power is like talking about the fleas on the dog that is menacing you. It is the dog that is the problem. IF the power were not illegally centralized in washington DC the lobbyists (and the politicians) would not have the inordinate power they have.
Decentralization- that is, state level power- is more democratic because state representatives are more attentive and easier to reach by voters. AT the state level, an individual vote has much more impact.
- patrickgzill 16y agoI agree, however would point out that Senators were originally supposed to be appointed by each state, and were to represent the interests of the state (as a check on Federal power). That they are now popularly elected is a step backwards.
- _delirium 16y agoAre the states actually run better, though? They seem pretty inept to me overall when it comes to things like economics, and are even worse than the federal government when it comes to things like civil liberties (we'd be totally screwed if the Bill of Rights hadn't been incorporated against the states).
- piguy314 16y agoSome states are better run, and people (and companies) will move to those states, that's the point. With the federal government there are no alternatives, there is no choice.
- mdaniel 16y agoI have two comments about that, one idealistic and one pragmatic. If I am not mistaken, the state-centric view taken by the founders was to afford the people a vote-by-shoe-leather system. It literally was: "if you don't like it here, leave" but without the bile. Also, as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, in order for your interests to "win" in a federally-scoped election, you have to convince a ton more people, who [as members of other states, natch] quite possibly have a very different life situation than you do. In order for your interests to prevail in a state-scoped election, you only have to convince a smaller set of voters who are very likely in your same situation.