PDA

View Full Version : Seldom discussed inefficencies of an overly federalized America



donttread
12-27-2014, 11:13 AM
Alluded to in the DOT thread is the inherent inefficiency of a federally dominated government created by the ill fated 16thAmendment.
Before 1913 if the federal government collected funds in excess of what was needed to run the federal government within it's Constitutional limitations the excess funds were returned to the states based upon population. It my seem like an obscure point, but it is actually incredibly significant.
We now send monies intended for state use to Washington where federal pork rules the day. We pay our legislators to haggle over who gets how much of their own money back instead of tending to real federal business. The process takes time and therefore interest is lost.

Peter1469
12-27-2014, 11:27 AM
1937 was the critical point- when SCOTUS rolled over and started to allow congress to justify every law with the Commerce Clause.

Newpublius
12-27-2014, 11:30 AM
And just to expound, General Welfare clause as well.....

Newpublius
12-27-2014, 11:31 AM
Alluded to in the DOT thread is the inherent inefficiency of a federally dominated government created by the ill fated 16thAmendment.
Before 1913 if the federal government collected funds in excess of what was needed to run the federal government within it's Constitutional limitations the excess funds were returned to the states based upon population. It my seem like an obscure point, but it is actually incredibly significant.
We now send monies intended for state use to Washington where federal pork rules the day. We pay our legislators to haggle over who gets how much of their own money back instead of tending to real federal business. The process takes time and therefore interest is lost.

It it epitomizes how NOT to allocate resources.

Chris
12-27-2014, 12:11 PM
Alluded to in the DOT thread is the inherent inefficiency of a federally dominated government created by the ill fated 16thAmendment.
Before 1913 if the federal government collected funds in excess of what was needed to run the federal government within it's Constitutional limitations the excess funds were returned to the states based upon population. It my seem like an obscure point, but it is actually incredibly significant.
We now send monies intended for state use to Washington where federal pork rules the day. We pay our legislators to haggle over who gets how much of their own money back instead of tending to real federal business. The process takes time and therefore interest is lost.



Another significant difference is this: Prior to the 16th government had to appeal to the wealthy for cooperation if not funding of its projects--the wealthy had the upper hand and virtually ruled the government. With passage of the 16th, the government gained direct access to the wealth of the people, gaining upper hand over the wealthy who now had to lobby to the government for favors if not purchase it in campaign financing. The world turned upsidedown.

Chris
12-27-2014, 12:12 PM
And just to expound, General Welfare clause as well.....

Indeed, raising that clause from a restriction on power to a grant of undefined power.

donttread
12-27-2014, 12:26 PM
If the founders had intended either of those clauses to be a catch all for federal intervention in the states they would not have bothered to write out the enumerated powers.
Another anomaly. Alcohol prohibition require an Amendment while drug prohibition did not? Why?

PolWatch
12-27-2014, 12:29 PM
If the founders had intended either of those clauses to be a catch all for federal intervention in the states they would not have bothered to write out the enumerated powers.
Another anomaly. Alcohol prohibition require an Amendment while drug prohibition did not? Why?

good question...I have not thought of that before!

Matty
12-27-2014, 12:35 PM
What we have now is a congress taking money from tax payers and giving it to the non tax payers who are always yelling it's not enough! We have to make everyone pay taxes and get skin in the game!

Peter1469
12-27-2014, 12:45 PM
If the founders had intended either of those clauses to be a catch all for federal intervention in the states they would not have bothered to write out the enumerated powers.
Another anomaly. Alcohol prohibition require an Amendment while drug prohibition did not? Why?

Representatives of the States wrote the Constitution and the States ratified the Constitution.

The States were under no confusion that they were only ceding limited and enumerated powers to the federal government. This is where the living constitutionalists collapse.

Don
12-27-2014, 12:58 PM
Nixon stepped it up with "revenue sharing." Progressives. Slowing progressing the country from a limited government republic into a socialist police state with all power at the top.

Mini Me
12-27-2014, 05:21 PM
Representatives of the States wrote the Constitution and the States ratified the Constitution.

The States were under no confusion that they were only ceding limited and enumerated powers to the federal government. This is where the living constitutionalists collapse.

If the Constitution isn't a living document then why even have a Supreme Court?

Was it meant to die on the vine as soon as the Fathers wrote it? Of course not!

Peter1469
12-27-2014, 05:34 PM
If the Constitution isn't a living document then why even have a Supreme Court?

Was it meant to die on the vine as soon as the Fathers wrote it? Of course not!

Die on the vine? What does this mean?

Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)

Howey
12-27-2014, 05:43 PM
Alluded to in the DOT thread is the inherent inefficiency of a federally dominated government created by the ill fated 16thAmendment.
Before 1913 if the federal government collected funds in excess of what was needed to run the federal government within it's Constitutional limitations the excess funds were returned to the states based upon population. It my seem like an obscure point, but it is actually incredibly significant.
We now send monies intended for state use to Washington where federal pork rules the day. We pay our legislators to haggle over who gets how much of their own money back instead of tending to real federal business. The process takes time and therefore interest is lost.
How do we send monies intended for state use to Washington?

donttread
12-28-2014, 07:48 AM
How do we send monies intended for state use to Washington?

Good God, you don't even know how the system you defend works? Billions of federal tax dollars are redistributed to the states in pork barrel deals with strings attached. Monies that could of simply stayed at home like they used to

lynn
12-28-2014, 08:22 AM
Good God, you don't even know how the system you defend works? Billions of federal tax dollars are redistributed to the states in pork barrel deals with strings attached. Monies that could of simply stayed at home like they used to


The federal government does it this way to keep states in line by the threat of being cut off of those funds.

PolWatch
12-28-2014, 08:26 AM
Its also used as a way to reward states for political affiliation. The southern strategy changed the south to republican and they are now the recipients of the most federal pork.

donttread
12-28-2014, 09:10 AM
The federal government does it this way to keep states in line by the threat of being cut off of those funds.

Exactly, bypassing the Tenth Amendment via financial blackmail

CaveDog
12-28-2014, 05:56 PM
And just to expound, General Welfare clause as well.....


To the degree that it applies. As part of the preamble it's not technically law. The courts tend to view it as a guide when interpreting the rest of the document.

Peter1469
12-28-2014, 06:11 PM
To the degree that it applies. As part of the preamble it's not technically law. The courts tend to view it as a guide when interpreting the rest of the document.

That is what it is. The General welfare for purposes of the federal government is: see the list below.

Chris
12-28-2014, 06:14 PM
To the degree that it applies. As part of the preamble it's not technically law. The courts tend to view it as a guide when interpreting the rest of the document.

The General Welfare clause of the Preamble is still part of the supreme law of the land and restrictive of powers granted:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The General Welfare clause also appears in Article II Section 8. though I would argue is still restrictive on powers granted:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United State....

CaveDog
01-01-2015, 07:14 PM
The General Welfare clause of the Preamble is still part of the supreme law of the land and restrictive of powers granted:



The General Welfare clause also appears in Article II Section 8. though I would argue is still restrictive on powers granted:


Agreed. Where it was common for monarchs in particular to bestow special favors on their supporters to retain power I see the general welfare clause as discouraging such practices.

Of course our leaders today would never consider such a thing.

donttread
01-02-2015, 09:20 AM
Neither the "General Welfare" Clause "nor the "Commerce Clause" were intended to give the federal government extensive powers within the states. If that is what the founders had wanted why would they have bothered writing the enumerated powers to begin with?