5 ms·

The way the country was set up, the laws that affect you are supposed to be made at as local of a level as possible, and the federal government exists solely to

The way the country was set up, the laws that affect you are supposed to be made at as local of a level as possible, and the federal government exists solely to pass laws that affect the entire country, about matters that the states can't handle themselves the way they want, and it's supposed to still be kept as minimal/small as possible. We're not supposed to have a huge federal government that decrees laws for the entire country like some sort of King. Every city, county, state, has the opportunity to set things up how they best see fit. Something like this is completely antithetical to the way the country is supposed to run.

tptacek 3y ago
That is in fact not how the country was set up. State sovereignty was, of course, but the Federalist Papers are wary of local government.
mholm 3y ago
On one hand, I entirely agree with you. The federal government was not made to perform these sorts of actions. But on the other hand, it's the only mediating organization outside the bucket of crabs that is our real estate market. Localities should have the power to manage their own regions. But when those localities are fighting between (0,0,0,0,...) and (2,0,0,0,...), it makes sense to push them all to a (1,1,...)
jcranmer 3y ago
> The way the country was set up, the laws that affect you are supposed to be made at as local of a level as possible That's not really true. The various states are (and always have been) unitary states from a political governance perspective. As expressed in modern jurisprudence, the majority of states are Dillon Rule states: states where local governments are purely creatures of the state government, and whose powers (or even existence) can be expanded or abrogated at the sole pleasure of the state. > and the federal government exists solely to pass laws that affect the entire country, about matters that the states can't handle themselves the way they want, and it's supposed to still be kept as minimal/small as possible. This is somewhat more true, but it's still a pretty poor reflection. Recall that the US Constitution was not the first form of government the US had: it was a response to the issues with the Articles of Confederation, which had the "federal" government as much, much weaker. It's not even fair to call the US a federal government at that point; the notion of a federal state--two levels of government, each with their own, independent locus of power not derived from the pleasure of the other--was more or less created from scratch for the Constitution. The Constitution does limit the powers of the federal government to, broadly speaking, two areas, with a third later being developed via amendments. These are international affairs (both in treaty making and military developments) and commercial regulation, with enforcement of civil rights later coming into play. Now, it's the case that things like the EPA or FDA aren't mentioned by the Constitution, but that kind of regulatory authority just didn't exist when it was written, and the existing grants of commercial regulation strongly suggest that it is intended for the federal government to have that regulatory authority to provide a single, integrated market among the several states of the union.

tptacek 3y ago

That is in fact not how the country was set up. State sovereignty was, of course, but the Federalist Papers are wary of local government.

mholm 3y ago

On one hand, I entirely agree with you. The federal government was not made to perform these sorts of actions. But on the other hand, it's the only mediating organization outside the bucket of crabs that is our real estate market. Localities should have the power to manage their own regions. But when those localities are fighting between (0,0,0,0,...) and (2,0,0,0,...), it makes sense to push them all to a (1,1,...)

jcranmer 3y ago

> The way the country was set up, the laws that affect you are supposed to be made at as local of a level as possible That's not really true. The various states are (and always have been) unitary states from a political governance perspective. As expressed in modern jurisprudence, the majority of states are Dillon Rule states: states where local governments are purely creatures of the state government, and whose powers (or even existence) can be expanded or abrogated at the sole pleasure of the state. > and the federal government exists solely to pass laws that affect the entire country, about matters that the states can't handle themselves the way they want, and it's supposed to still be kept as minimal/small as possible. This is somewhat more true, but it's still a pretty poor reflection. Recall that the US Constitution was not the first form of government the US had: it was a response to the issues with the Articles of Confederation, which had the "federal" government as much, much weaker. It's not even fair to call the US a federal government at that point; the notion of a federal state--two levels of government, each with their own, independent locus of power not derived from the pleasure of the other--was more or less created from scratch for the Constitution. The Constitution does limit the powers of the federal government to, broadly speaking, two areas, with a third later being developed via amendments. These are international affairs (both in treaty making and military developments) and commercial regulation, with enforcement of civil rights later coming into play. Now, it's the case that things like the EPA or FDA aren't mentioned by the Constitution, but that kind of regulatory authority just didn't exist when it was written, and the existing grants of commercial regulation strongly suggest that it is intended for the federal government to have that regulatory authority to provide a single, integrated market among the several states of the union.