5 ms·

The structure of the Federal government is fundamentally geared towards mediating the relationships between the various states, as that was its original purpose

by kd5bjo 7y ago

The structure of the Federal government is fundamentally geared towards mediating the relationships between the various states, as that was its original purpose. Actual governance of the populace was the purview of state government. Over time, however, decisions about domestic law have increasingly been made at the Federal level. At this point, the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution is used to justify almost any regulation that the Federal government wants to pass. When that doesn’t work, availability of Federal tax money is made contingent on states aligning their laws with whatever national policy is. Also, the legislature has been ceding its rule-making authority to the executive by passing broadly-worded legislation and leaving the details to administrative rules committees that work for the executive. I suspect that ‘vturner is suggesting the correct fix is to shift the overall balance of power back towards the more democratic parts of government instead of reforming the election process of the government’s chief clerk.

sytelus 7y ago
Thanks for insightful comments. Its sometime easy to forget that USA means union of states. Each state has a freedom to create its own laws within the limits of constitution to satisfy needs of its population. The way I see it, different states present different philosophy and lifestyle. People are free to get attached to the one they feel most aligned. President is supposed to be representing this union of states, not just the major population centers.
WarDores 7y ago
This exactly. If the issue is people feeling/being disenfranchised, changing how we elect the President isn't going to help. It just reinforces the idea that we're a monarchy and the job of the rest of the government is to do the will of the President. We can do better than this! The Presidential horse race every 4 years is mostly for television. Federalism works because you want the decisions that affect your life the most to have the most direct accountability.
- notfromhere 7y ago
  Nothing reinforces the feeling of disenfranchisement than having no direct impact on how the most powerful single government is elected. The Electoral College is fundamentally undemocratic and the lack of democracy de-legitimizes the office.
  - WarDores 7y ago
    Why does direct democracy confer legitimacy? Does the Supreme Court not have legitimate authority? I don't see a correlation.
    - notfromhere 7y ago
      because legitimate government is based on the consent of the governed? Supreme Court justices are picked by popularly elected Senators. It's not even direct democracy, its a representative democracy. Except in the case of the presidency we're not even allowed to directly pick our representative in the executive branch.
      - kd5bjo 7y ago
        > Supreme Court justices are picked by popularly elected Senators. Not exactly; they’re selected by the President and then confirmed by the Senate, which wasn’t popularly elected until 1913.
        notfromhere 7y ago
        Senators were legitimized through popular elections since before the whole body was appointed via backroom deals with state legislatures, and have been popularly elected for over 100 years.
dahart 7y ago
Thank you for the very reasonable and rational explanation! That does broaden my interpretation of vturner’s comment. Your comment seems broadly true and open minded as well. I have a couple of questions, possibly from a devil’s advocate perspective, purely for the sake of discussion because I’m curious: When you say the government was originally geared to mediate the states and that real governance was supposed to be states, what does the Supremacy Clause in the constitution mean to you? It was there originally from the start, and it declares the federal government the winner of conflicting state and federal laws. Second, while I am personally a fan of states’ rights in a bunch of specific scenarios, it makes little sense to me to talk vaguely about who should be in control of most laws without a specific list of regulations in mind. Where can I find a list of federal laws that are broadly viewed to be overreach by most people, that most people agree should be in state control? Acknowledging that there is politics here, that it’s a fight over control, and your point that the Federal government is leveraging tax money, is it possible that the natural order of things is for laws to drift in the federal direction anyway - as travel across state boundaries has become faster and faster, as the internet blurs the lines, as state laws individually become closer together, as we see more needs for consistent standards nationally, etc.? When the constitution was written it took a minimum of days to even communicate with another state, let alone spend money, purchase goods, or visit. The geographic, financial, and communication boundaries between states has literally almost disappeared compared to what it used to be.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  Unfortunately, Aside from identifying general trends, I haven’t looked into the issues enough to hold any strong opinions, nor am I in a position to cite any specifics without significant research. I think you may be right about increased interconnectedness naturally leading to a larger federal role in everyday governance. As far as the supremacy clause goes, it’s necessary for the treaty to work. The states are agreeing to give up some of their sovereign rights to be executed by the federal government instead, in the interests of the union. The bulk of the Constitution describes exactly those rights that the states are giving up, and this clause confirms that they can’t pass legislation to opt out of individual federal decisions they don’t like that fall within those bounds. Without it, the federal government would in practice only be able to make suggestions— a situation that led to bankruptcy under the Articles of Confederation. I’m actually more concerned about the shift in power from the legislature to the executive. As the role of the federal government has grown, it feels like every executive agency has grown its own miniature legislature and judiciary that are primarily beholden to the executive. Agency regulations are law, so why aren’t they drafted and approved by an arm of the relevant congressional committee?

by kd5bjo 7y ago

sytelus 7y ago

Thanks for insightful comments. Its sometime easy to forget that USA means union of states. Each state has a freedom to create its own laws within the limits of constitution to satisfy needs of its population. The way I see it, different states present different philosophy and lifestyle. People are free to get attached to the one they feel most aligned. President is supposed to be representing this union of states, not just the major population centers.

WarDores 7y ago

This exactly. If the issue is people feeling/being disenfranchised, changing how we elect the President isn't going to help. It just reinforces the idea that we're a monarchy and the job of the rest of the government is to do the will of the President. We can do better than this! The Presidential horse race every 4 years is mostly for television. Federalism works because you want the decisions that affect your life the most to have the most direct accountability.

notfromhere 7y ago
Nothing reinforces the feeling of disenfranchisement than having no direct impact on how the most powerful single government is elected. The Electoral College is fundamentally undemocratic and the lack of democracy de-legitimizes the office.
- WarDores 7y ago
  Why does direct democracy confer legitimacy? Does the Supreme Court not have legitimate authority? I don't see a correlation.
  - notfromhere 7y ago
    because legitimate government is based on the consent of the governed? Supreme Court justices are picked by popularly elected Senators. It's not even direct democracy, its a representative democracy. Except in the case of the presidency we're not even allowed to directly pick our representative in the executive branch.
    - kd5bjo 7y ago
      > Supreme Court justices are picked by popularly elected Senators. Not exactly; they’re selected by the President and then confirmed by the Senate, which wasn’t popularly elected until 1913.
      - notfromhere 7y ago
        Senators were legitimized through popular elections since before the whole body was appointed via backroom deals with state legislatures, and have been popularly elected for over 100 years.

dahart 7y ago

Thank you for the very reasonable and rational explanation! That does broaden my interpretation of vturner’s comment. Your comment seems broadly true and open minded as well. I have a couple of questions, possibly from a devil’s advocate perspective, purely for the sake of discussion because I’m curious: When you say the government was originally geared to mediate the states and that real governance was supposed to be states, what does the Supremacy Clause in the constitution mean to you? It was there originally from the start, and it declares the federal government the winner of conflicting state and federal laws. Second, while I am personally a fan of states’ rights in a bunch of specific scenarios, it makes little sense to me to talk vaguely about who should be in control of most laws without a specific list of regulations in mind. Where can I find a list of federal laws that are broadly viewed to be overreach by most people, that most people agree should be in state control? Acknowledging that there is politics here, that it’s a fight over control, and your point that the Federal government is leveraging tax money, is it possible that the natural order of things is for laws to drift in the federal direction anyway - as travel across state boundaries has become faster and faster, as the internet blurs the lines, as state laws individually become closer together, as we see more needs for consistent standards nationally, etc.? When the constitution was written it took a minimum of days to even communicate with another state, let alone spend money, purchase goods, or visit. The geographic, financial, and communication boundaries between states has literally almost disappeared compared to what it used to be.

kd5bjo 7y ago
Unfortunately, Aside from identifying general trends, I haven’t looked into the issues enough to hold any strong opinions, nor am I in a position to cite any specifics without significant research. I think you may be right about increased interconnectedness naturally leading to a larger federal role in everyday governance. As far as the supremacy clause goes, it’s necessary for the treaty to work. The states are agreeing to give up some of their sovereign rights to be executed by the federal government instead, in the interests of the union. The bulk of the Constitution describes exactly those rights that the states are giving up, and this clause confirms that they can’t pass legislation to opt out of individual federal decisions they don’t like that fall within those bounds. Without it, the federal government would in practice only be able to make suggestions— a situation that led to bankruptcy under the Articles of Confederation. I’m actually more concerned about the shift in power from the legislature to the executive. As the role of the federal government has grown, it feels like every executive agency has grown its own miniature legislature and judiciary that are primarily beholden to the executive. Agency regulations are law, so why aren’t they drafted and approved by an arm of the relevant congressional committee?