Whenever I hear a pundit or politician West spouting about the need to transfer power from the federal government to the states, I think back to my college days at the University of Montana.
The campus is bordered on its northwest by the Clark Fork River which, in the days of my youth, was an open sewer. Under the auspices of the city and state through which it flowed, the river was abused and ignored until it actually became a menace. A caring, but exasperated, public finally petitioned the federal government to clean the waterway -- much as the citizens of Ohio were to do when the Cuyahoga River actually caught on fire!
Today the Clark Fork, the Cuyahoga, and many hundreds of other American rivers run clear because after 200 years of mistaken trust in our localities and states to assure clean, safe water, the citizens finally demanded that their federal government aggressively assert itself as an environmental partner with our states and cities. The wonderful results of the federal response are everywhere.
The truth is, the West needs a strong federal government, perhaps more than any other region in the country. Oh, I know, that sounds almost un-American in a country which, at least for now, harbors a popular fetish to harangue anything federal. The current anti-federal mongering, particularly by the Far Right, is not only wrong-headed, it is dangerous. And it threatens to upset the balance -- what Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor refers to as "the elegant balance" -- between our state and federal governments.
That balance was purposefully hardwired into the United States Constitution by America's founders, who brilliantly recognized that the sharing of authority between state and federal governments would allow each to make its separate contribution to the building and sustaining of the country and its citizens. It is called Federalism and it works.
Consider just one element -- costs. For those of us living in the lightly populated West, the cost of essential public services are critical. The equitable absorption of cost through the federal treasury has saved many western states' bacon. Can 900,000 Montanans pay the cost of the many hundreds of miles of interstate highways and bridges which cross and link our state? Will the 500,000 in the citizens of Wyoming be financially responsible for the Pell Grants and federally guaranteed student loans that assist their 20,000 college-bound students?
If left to operate alone, our state governments, particularly here in the West, would be in the deepest of trouble. And, frankly, the duplication, confusion, disarray, regulations and -- yes -- fraud, waste, and abuse in state governments, taken collectively, makes the workings of Washington, D.C., look almost efficient by comparison. Those who doubt that should ask the nation's long distance, truckers or railroaders. They, and many other interstate businesses, will tell you that state, and often local, governments are their biggest regulatory nightmare.
State governments in the West cannot satisfy the basic safety, health care, transportation or even education requirements of their own people. Failing that, they can hardly find the vitality to be the vaunted "laboratories of change" we have heard so much about.
We also hear a lot about "devolution" -- the effort to further empower state governments with authority mostly now reserved for the federal government. The idea has some basis and reason for support. But as we move toward devolution, let's be clearheaded about the intent of our founders as well as the inherent weakness of states acting alone.
States and state's rightists have too often ignored the civil rights of their own citizens and, even more so, the rights of their citizens to live in relatively clean and safe environments.
Our founders somehow knew that our rights as individuals are best assured by not being beholden to only one government. Thus they built in the checks and balances inherent in the partnership of federal and state government. No people anywhere have benefited more from that federalism than have we westerners. As we consider this new movement toward more jurisdiction and authority to the states, we should do so with caution, wisdom and a good memory.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something he did earn
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else’s wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one’s own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
State's rights, just implies local governance.
"If the federal government cannot even pass a law giving everyone access to universal health care without being slaves of the insurance monopolies then what good is the federal government?"
"Perhaps single-payer could be done on a state by state basis leaving the reactionary states alone and having a humane and efficient health care system in progressive states."
I'm from the left and believe that you are SO right on the money.
People in the states would certainly be able to take care of their own infrastructure and health care if they were not funding multi-trillion dollar bailouts for financial institutions that the FEDERAL government was supposed to oversee
.... and if the people in the states were not paying trillions for an unecessary war based upon lies told by FEDERAL officials
....and if the Federal Government was not getting read to pass a permenant bailout to the health care industry at the expense of the people in the states.
Pennsylvania is trying to establish a single payer type system and I imagine the federal government will do what it can to stop them, for reasons indicated here:
The Democrats' Scam Becomes More Apparent, by Glen Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
But hey when a party had a VP candidate whose husband was a member of a seccesionist party and Governor Perry can hint at secession and win his primary you know our system has some challenges ahead.
The thing to remember is that each state right removed reduces choice by 1 from 50.
The call to protect states rights is clearly founded in the 10th amendment of the constitution.
Let me try one the other way,
The excessive spending by the Federal government in relationship to taxes is at its worst and the national debt is a monument to how the Federal Government has squandered the wealth of the American people. Therefore we must return the financial control of the nation back to the people.
I am sorry that one doesn’t fit as a fallacious argument, because it’s true.
This is a nicely written article Pat. However, the framing of the Constitution took place mostly in secret so as to avoid the conflict of interests that inevitably arise in the debate of matters of such import. It had little to do with individual rights and much to do with CONTROL for enforcing taxation, providing for national defense, and making money. Making money, meaning that without the potential to profit by political means, potential elected officials wouldn't be interested in seeking public office. (Read "Wealthy Merchants and Land Holders") The Bill of Rights was an after thought adopted later and drafted mostly by Madison who, like Patric Henry, saw in the new Constitution only the all too familiar threats to the "rights and liberties of the people."
The point is, the framers "wisdom" was more about making money and maintaining order and power over the states. As far as I know, nothing was ever discussed about the central government supporting the states in anyway. In fact, it was the other way around.
You should do a little reading . . .
The central thesis, that the vast majority of the founders were extremely wealthy, and designed a system of government to benefit (surprise!) the extremely wealthy, has never been discredited -- just avoided.
hence, the Federalist Papers.
In the meeting, on the other hand, they were open about what they were doing -- preventing an "excess of democracy" and protecting the "opulent minority" from the whims of the majority.
When the minutes of the meeting contradict what was said in a political campaign ad (i.e., the Federalist Papers), I'd say we should go with the minutes for the planning meeting to understand their motives.
Two great books to look at are "The Case Against the Constitution" (Manley & Dolbeare, eds.) and "Towards an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution & Other Illusions" by Jerry Fresia ...
I thought it was a winning argument for legalizing marijuana since the states are supposed to regulate medical practices and the fed is prohibited from interfering in my religion.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Cultivation and enjoyment of Cannabis sacrament is a fundamental human right provided by God and protected by the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is our opinion that Cannabis is the original sacrament of Hebrew, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Rasta and more, and fulfills the prophesies to ‘raise up for them a plant of renown…’
http://www.thc-ministry.org/
Reverend Lauren Unruh
THC Ministry