I have mentioned in a previous posting that I love reading the Deseret News opinion forums. If that is ever taken away from me, I really don't know how I would function.
Ever since the last presidential election, I have seen an overwhelming amount of letters stating that the Founding Fathers and Framers never meant to have a strong national government and that is why the Constitution was written. I am going to say nothing could be further from the truth.
Let us go back and examine a little history. During the American Revolution, the American people fought against the tyranny of the Crown and Parliament. They drafted the Declaration of Independence, and shortly afterward drafted the Articles of Confederation, although not officially ratified until 1781, they were essentially in effect in 1777. The Articles of Confederation were a disaster! They essentially created a crippled central government that could not tax, but only ask for money. They basically created 13 small countries, allied in name only. Different currencies, different trade laws made them all unstable, and ripe for the picking of any major European power that wanted to conquer them. Benjamin Franklin made several cries for unification, as evidenced by his famous political cartoon of the snake cut up in 13 pieces saying unite or die.
Finally, in 1787 the Constitutional Convention was held. In it, the States would give up several of their rights, and be subject to a more powerful, but still limited National Government. The idea of Federalism was born. Their would be certain aspects that would belong strictly in the domain of the National Government, and restrictions placed on what States could and could not do, as well as the National Government. The National Government could tax, could create a military and regulate commerce between the several States. Power would be split among three different branches of government, so no one person or entity could abuse power.
During the ratification campaign across the country, a series of papers were written, primarily by written by Alexander Hamilton and secondly James Madison. In Federalist 10, James Madison discusses factions. He moves forward the idea that the democracies of Greece failed because they were too small. Factions would eventually develop, a faction being a political party who is driven by one narrow purpose. This purpose could be something as small as "We are against people leaving their porch light on past 3 am". This faction, if unchecked would gain followers and soon develop unlimited power. He argued that a large democracy would work. Where this "We hate porch lights" faction could be popular in Maine, with the geography and population of the United States, would be countered by another faction in Delaware that would claim "Porch lights must be on all the time." And this would prevent one idea, or group from dominating all others.
Where am I going with this? If too much power is vested in the State, it will lead to factions much easier than if the power is given at the National level. In a real world example, the political power of the LDS Church is very strong in Utah, nearly 60% of the State claims membership, but on a National level it is much weaker because the population in the Northeast has very different ideas about how things should run, and the South has different points of view that are different from both. All of these seek to balance each other out. Now I am not saying the LDS Church having political influence is good, or bad, nor that they are seeking it (they are generally apolitical, but this is all a different discussion for a different day) but when 60% of the State's population belongs to any one cause (church, or poker club even) they will have some political power. Because of this, people who do not belong to said organization run the risk of having their rights impeded. So unless a higher authority than that of the State is their to protect their rights, mob rule will result.
Another extreme example of States rights was that of slavery. Left unchecked, and for years, it was perfectly legal in some states to own another human being. We later fought a war over whether or not the National Government could intervene of the issue. I, for one, am glad the States lost this battle.
Let me use the organization of the Church as an example. I would call them a Central form of government, but locally ran. All of the policies, laws, regulations all come from one source, Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah. However, it is up to the local wards, branches and stakes to put them into effect. The church has policies in place to help the poor and needy, but it is the local bishop, using that guidance that dispenses and authorizes that funding. The result is One Doctrine, One Faith and a very personal application of that.
Wouldn't that be more effective than having different rules and regulations in different regions? Take the idea of marriage. Under the Constitution, Article IV we find the good faith and credit clause. All States must recognize the actions of other States. I am married by Utah law, but if I move to California, they must recognize that Utah marriage. Under the 10th Amendment, marriage is a purview of the States. Today, in some states it is legal for two people of the same gender to marry. In others, those marriages are illegal. So what happens if a same gender couple from Massachusetts moves to Utah that prohibits the recognition of that marriage? Are they married or not? If there was a stronger Central government that set one national standard, there would be no question.
Am I advocating the National Government have the power to regulate anything and everything and strip the States and local governments of all power? No. However, in cases that effect all Americans (like marriage) they should be able to. Local issues, that affect only that State or city should be left up to that level of government. Issues like, at what time will the street lights come on? How are the citizens of city A going to be able to travel to City B to conduct business? What types of business do we want to foster and encourage here locally? Those are great issues that should be left completely out of the National Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment