limit the federal government to its defined Constitutional role
The Supreme Court was supposed to insure this. Epic fail on their part.
>limit the federal government to its defined Constitutional role
The Supreme Court was supposed to insure this. Epic fail on their part.
Agreed. They've been really decent recently, but there are 70 years of bad decisons that have granted more power to the state, so there is a lot of damage to undo.
Agreed. They've been really decent recently, but there are 70 years of bad decisons that have granted more power to the state, so there is a lot of damage to undo.
This article is really frustrating to read. Half of these are reasonable ideas and the other half sound like the raving rants from your drunk uncle who lives in rural Alabama. Is it too much to ask for to get politicians that aren't insuffarable statists, corporate shills, or religious zeallots and who instead mind their own business? Take for example states overruling federal laws. We've been through this already, and there is a reason why a federalist system works better (i.e. checks and balances and preventing centralization of authority). Paleoconservatives get a hardon thinking about what they're overrule in Oklahoma, but do they consider what California will overrule? What is even the point of having a country if there is almost zero continuity between states?
How about this instead: limit the federal government to its defined Constitutional role, leave everything else to states, and mind your own business if your neighbor (or neighboring state) chooses something different. Political discourse in this country is beyond loony...