Federalism is dead and Obsolete

[liberty]

Now is the time to do away with the old out moted federal system: it is just a waste of money; it would be more efficient for the federal government to take over control of all political activity in the country. The president, in order to save money and make the government more efficient, would nominate and appoint all governors, mayors, chiefs of police, and sheriffs throughout the country. There would be only one sovereignty the federal government. This should make things more uniform and much more efficient don't you agree?

[Burning Petard]

Most puzzling. Your chosen name is "Liberty" That seems to be like the real estate developer who buys a parcel of hilly land covered with trees, levels it and removes all the trees, builds the new housing, and then calls the place 'hilly grove'. The federal government has only those powers granted to it by the people. The people are sovereign. Efficiency is not the major priority.

I do thank you for your post above. It is a nice example of a priority of many in America and throughout the world. This desire is a major consideration in the general election today in Germany. You have expressed your own desire to trade away your liberty in order to reduce your own responsibilities.

snailgate.

[rubato]

People do seem to have stopped writing papers about it.

Yrs,
Rubato

[Big RR]

I hope you're just making a joke Lib. I never thought of you as someone who would love a dictator, even Trump.

[Joe Guy]

[liberty]

I have no desire to trade my liberty for anything; perhaps you miss this: nana. I was using my channeling skills to reflect the desire of liberals or at least what appears to be the desire liberals over the last 50 years. It's the left that wants to do away with all the safeguards that prevent a tyrant from seizing power in this country. They think that they are burdensome and are not needed. They were the product of a bunch of old paranoid white men, but I think those old paranoid white men were right, it's crazy to put all your eggs in one basket something any country boy should know. Remember the Brady bill that required sheriffs to carry out a federal gun control law. That was an example of federal government overreach fortunately a liberal Supreme Court ruled that sheriffs are state officials and could not be compelled to carry out a federal law; they could voluntarily cooperate with the national government unless they were prohibited by their state from doing so.

"The Supreme Court ruled on the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in the case of Printz v. United States in 1997. The Court held that the Act's interim provision, which required state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers, was unconstitutional. The ruling was based on the Tenth Amendment, which limits the federal government's power to compel state officials to enforce federal laws;"

[BoSoxGal]

So we’re just abolishing the federal judiciary? Also the state judiciaries?

The Donnie & Pam Show - if they save their country, the law is no matter.

[liberty]

I hope you're just making a joke Lib. I never thought of you as someone who would love a dictator, even Trump.

You are right. see my previous post. I don't carry water for any man, and I trust no one; all men are potential tyrants, but sometimes strong leaders are needed. The reason that Trump was elected Is because of things like illegal immigration; among other things it will destroy the social warfare system in this country including Social Security, which is not welfare by the way. Illegal immigration has to be controlled, and we have reached the point where halfway measures will not work, they have to be extreme.

[Joe Guy]

It's the left that wants to do away with all the safeguards that prevent a tyrant from seizing power in this country.

Watch the above video I posted and then tell me who wants to do away with those safeguards.

[liberty]

Well, Joe you appear to be reasonably decent guy, so I think you deserve an explanation why I did not click on your link. I only click on links that I trust and the only people here that I've trusted were Econoline, Gob, and the Grim Reaper and they're all gone. If you had provided enough text for me to know what the subject was, I could've looked it up myself.

[Joe Guy]

Well, Joe you appear to be reasonably decent guy, so I think you deserve an explanation why I did not click on your link. I only click on links that I trust and the only people here that I've trusted were Econoline, Gob, and the Grim Reaper and they're all gone. If you had provided enough text for me to know what the subject was, I could've looked it up myself.

If you don't trust YouTube, I can't help you. It's Trump proclaiming that only he and his attorney general can voice an opinion on what is and is not legal. The discussion is something you should hear but you won't accept, so never mind.....

[Big RR]

I hope you're just making a joke Lib. I never thought of you as someone who would love a dictator, even Trump.

You are right. see my previous post. I don't carry water for any man, and I trust no one; all men are potential tyrants, but sometimes strong leaders are needed. The reason that Trump was elected Is because of things like illegal immigration; among other things it will destroy the social warfare system in this country including Social Security, which is not welfare by the way. Illegal immigration has to be controlled, and we have reached the point where halfway measures will not work, they have to be extreme.

Glad to hear it was a joke, but I disagree about the need for strong leaders--the danger is too great, and certainly greater than the immigration problem--not sure what "social warfare" is, but I think you mean social welfare--exactly what programs do you think undocumented aliens are entitled to? Not really many--no welfare, no ADC, no section 8; sure, they can get emergency care in hospitals for serious problems, and some localities and private charities provide some assistance, but I see no imminent collapse of the social welfare system. Social security--how do they threaten that? They are not eligible for those benefits.

Certainly this "threat" pales in comparison to the threat of a "strong leader" (and IMHO Trump is neither, but his cabal is) who had his followers storm the capitol to try and change the election results--that's a real danger (but many people refuse to recognize it). We don't need to concentrate power in an administration, we need to use Congress and the Courts in the way our Constitution intended and be sure no administration, right or left, can assume dictatorial powers. But I guess we don't have time for that, we need to stop the illegal immigrants ruining social security by any means necessary...

[liberty]

Well Joe, the best I can tell all he's saying is that he with the aid of his AG will interpret the law for the executive branch; that hardly seems like a constitutional crisis. After all, he is the boss, what will be interesting is these independent agencies. Does Congress even have the power to establish an independent agency. The Constitution says all executive power is invested in the presidency so how can Congress establish an agency that's beyond the control of the president?

[ex-khobar Andy]

I think the word 'Executive' has changed its meaning since 1787. To me, the Constitution gives the law making power to Congress: "We shall have speed limits on the roads." And the executive branch has experts in road engineering and traffic systems and policing, and comes up with a framework of regulations, based on investigation, of a reasonable compromise between safety and the need to move goods and people, how to enforce it and so on. We could cut highway deaths to zero by having a 1 mph limit nationwide but we don't. Nowadays, because 'Executive' in most peoples' minds means the same as 'the Boss,' the meaning of the word has migrated.

Unfortunately, the Constitution gave conduct of foreign affairs to the president. In 1787 no-one really gave a shit what happened in Russia or China or Paraguay - geography and the travel and military technologies of the time meant that it didn't matter much.

The Founding Fathers thought that they had put in place a pretty easy means to amend the constitution: reasonable men (they were all men) could agree to make changes as necessary. Given today's polarization, and the fact that 38 states have to agree, I don't think there will ever again be substantive changes. We're stuck with the electoral College, for example, because about 35 states have more than average voting power because of it, and will never vote against their own interest.