4 ms·

What part of GP's take on the American federalist system are you describing as radical? Seems to me that the truly radical thing is what the federal government

What part of GP's take on the American federalist system are you describing as radical? Seems to me that the truly radical thing is what the federal government has morphed into over the years, its founding constitutional document notwithstanding.

shkkmo 4y ago
Reducing the federal government to that scale would involve getting ride or the DOD and almost every federal agency. It is "radical" because that position is completely unacceptable to the vast majority, while parts of that plan might appeal to parts of the political spectrum, taken as a whole it is a plan thay has miniscule support. Thus, it is considered a radical view point.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  hmmm... Following the Constitution is Radical now... The US Navy is the only constitutional branch of the DoD. How is that for being radical.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    Yes, advocating such widespread changes to society on the basis of a specific interpretation/understanding of the constitution (the root document of our government) fits the meanings of the word almost too perfectly: > Arising from or going to a root or source; basic. >Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme or drastic. > Relating to or advocating fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions. > designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue > of or relating to the origin > favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions > Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.
    - krapp 4y ago
      If we have to put up with mass shootings and forcing women to choose between unwanted pregnancies and prison because of specific interpretations of the Constitution based solely on 18th century idioms, then we should go all in.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    I don't think they had to defend against threats from the air or space when they drafted the constitution. Nor were spies all that useful outside of wartime.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      This "well it is old document" falls on deaf ears with me. The solution on if parts of the constitution are out-dated is to pass amendments to the consititon, which has been done 27 times in our history. It seems today however we have allowed the federal government to simply ignore it because it is "too hard" to pass an amendment. Sorry if it important enough to expand the power of the federal government is should be important enough to put in the work to amend the constitution, and if you can not pass it then clearly the nation agree's it is not in scope of the federal government. And by "nation" I do not mean a "democratic vote where by 51% of the population tells the 49% what do to" which seems to be common in the "Protect our democracy" crowd.
      - judge2020 4y ago
        Where are they even overstepping? They don't get involved in situations outside of their power, like defending the country and regulating interstate commerce. What you're not seeing with your point is that the federal government actually hasn't really expanded their power, it's just that more and more things have been "capitalism-ified" to where doing business purely within one state is uneconomical. More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines, and thus the federal government is governing more of the everyday person's life than they were 100 years ago.
        prottog 4y ago
        > regulating interstate commerce The same Interstate Commerce Clause that in Wickard v. Filburn the federal judiciary interpreted as giving the federal legislature the authority to regulate intrastate non-commerce; and in turn relied upon in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has the authority to regulate the growing and use of cannabis for medical purposes by one man acting within one state and according to that state's laws for his own person. > More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines This is true, but the above examples show that the federal government is intruding in people's personal actions with no commercial purpose that stays confined to one state, on the basis that those actions might exert a force, however minute, on interstate commerce. The federal government may as well say that they can regulate everyone since people breathe air which crosses state lines and therefore is under federal jurisdiction.
bdhess 4y ago
The government changed because the nation changed. It's now the richest country in the world, with a population of 330 million people, and spans an entire continent from ocean to ocean. Even if you just consider the constitutional commander-in-chief duties, whoever holds the role is going to be a person of global importance.

shkkmo 4y ago

Reducing the federal government to that scale would involve getting ride or the DOD and almost every federal agency. It is "radical" because that position is completely unacceptable to the vast majority, while parts of that plan might appeal to parts of the political spectrum, taken as a whole it is a plan thay has miniscule support. Thus, it is considered a radical view point.

phpisthebest 4y ago
hmmm... Following the Constitution is Radical now... The US Navy is the only constitutional branch of the DoD. How is that for being radical.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  Yes, advocating such widespread changes to society on the basis of a specific interpretation/understanding of the constitution (the root document of our government) fits the meanings of the word almost too perfectly: > Arising from or going to a root or source; basic. >Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme or drastic. > Relating to or advocating fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions. > designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue > of or relating to the origin > favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions > Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.
  - krapp 4y ago
    If we have to put up with mass shootings and forcing women to choose between unwanted pregnancies and prison because of specific interpretations of the Constitution based solely on 18th century idioms, then we should go all in.
- judge2020 4y ago
  I don't think they had to defend against threats from the air or space when they drafted the constitution. Nor were spies all that useful outside of wartime.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    This "well it is old document" falls on deaf ears with me. The solution on if parts of the constitution are out-dated is to pass amendments to the consititon, which has been done 27 times in our history. It seems today however we have allowed the federal government to simply ignore it because it is "too hard" to pass an amendment. Sorry if it important enough to expand the power of the federal government is should be important enough to put in the work to amend the constitution, and if you can not pass it then clearly the nation agree's it is not in scope of the federal government. And by "nation" I do not mean a "democratic vote where by 51% of the population tells the 49% what do to" which seems to be common in the "Protect our democracy" crowd.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      Where are they even overstepping? They don't get involved in situations outside of their power, like defending the country and regulating interstate commerce. What you're not seeing with your point is that the federal government actually hasn't really expanded their power, it's just that more and more things have been "capitalism-ified" to where doing business purely within one state is uneconomical. More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines, and thus the federal government is governing more of the everyday person's life than they were 100 years ago.
      - prottog 4y ago
        > regulating interstate commerce The same Interstate Commerce Clause that in Wickard v. Filburn the federal judiciary interpreted as giving the federal legislature the authority to regulate intrastate non-commerce; and in turn relied upon in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has the authority to regulate the growing and use of cannabis for medical purposes by one man acting within one state and according to that state's laws for his own person. > More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines This is true, but the above examples show that the federal government is intruding in people's personal actions with no commercial purpose that stays confined to one state, on the basis that those actions might exert a force, however minute, on interstate commerce. The federal government may as well say that they can regulate everyone since people breathe air which crosses state lines and therefore is under federal jurisdiction.

bdhess 4y ago

The government changed because the nation changed. It's now the richest country in the world, with a population of 330 million people, and spans an entire continent from ocean to ocean. Even if you just consider the constitutional commander-in-chief duties, whoever holds the role is going to be a person of global importance.