KPN,
Now, being an attorney and having studied constitutional law in depth, I don't agree completely with your characterization of the amendments, protections afforded therein or the balance between federal, state and people. However, my real question for you is simply what is the answer to the question that I posed? Is your answer that you are really not in favor of state control but against what you perceive as an overextension of federal control into area into which it does not belong - and you have your understanding of this perceived set of limitations on the federal government based on your personal understanding of the Constitution?
Is that the answer?
I ask not to challenge you - just to get a real common sense understanding as to why someone would feel more comfortable with the state governing than with the feds governing.
What is the answer to that (b/c I think you feel more comfortable with states governing - I just really want to understand this). For example, Palin talks about how abortion should be left to states. Is she convinced that a state does more to protect the rights of an individual than the feds, for example? If not, what is this preference for the *state* to exercise power as compared to the feds?
What is the basis for the preference?
Thanks,
SC
Quote:
Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst
Good question, though one item I would like to clear up:
It is not a matter of the people being "controlled" by any governmental entity, but rather a proper and proportional balance of power by all parties involved: the people, the state, and the federal government.
All Articles of the Constitution addresses the roles and powers of the Federal Government, while and the first 8 of the 10 Bills of Rights addresses the means by which the federal government exercises its powers. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments by default relegates any powers not addressed previously in the Constitution to the people (Ninth Amendment) or to the States (Tenth Amendment).
Now as far as people being controlled by the State, if the State infringes on a person's rights or if the person has a grievance with the State, this is where the Eleventh Amendment supposedly comes into play. A citizen can sue the State in Federal court. A state does not have soverign immunity in such actions.
Ideally, the Federal government was intended to serve as a mediator between the people and the state, allowing the States to govern themselves accordingly while allowing the people life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I am oversimplifying this for the sake of brevity, but my point was that the federal government was NEVER intended to serve its own interests over that of its people or outside of the powers originally allowed to it by the United States Constitution, but was to serve at the pleasure of its people and to serve as referee between the people and the State, using the Constitution as a guide.
Because when you govern using the Constitution as a guide, you have a strong system of checks and balances instead of the rogue legislation practices and a string of un-Constitutional acts and executive orders, as you see now.
|