what is the purpose of federalism?  To provide the courts a rationale for making excessively narrow judgements. Under federalism, twisted logic is acceptable.  That's why federalism is a tool for those who wish to reduce civil rights, by discrimination.  A liberal court is just the opposite- it will seek at every turn to extend rights to every class, as it is defined into existence.  That's why liberalism is capable of dealing with the future; whereas federalism attempts to hold back the tide.

Facebook Fight!

Colby Codner Can we secede yet? I don't want my kids growing up under a Socialist/Facscist/Statist government.

March 21 at 7:16pm · Comment · 

2 people like this.

Ed Boyce 

I'm in man, it is time to either clean house or move out!

March 21 at 9:16pm

Loraine Marks Hirth 

Well, considering the other side's dream is to sit around and let someone take care of them from cradle to grave, I'd say we have a pretty good chance of winning. I would rather die than live without liberty. I'M IN!

March 22 at 11:31am

Eric Steinberg 

Gimme a break. Stop hating the President because he's black, go back to your PoliSci text, and see if you can figure out what all those "isms" really are about.

March 23 at 9:01pm · 

Colby Codner 

Eric, Please.

The President is also half white, and I happen to dislike that part of him too. Stop grasping at straws...

March 24 at 3:59am

Eric Steinberg 

No, the fact that you've conflated socialism and fascism only underscores that you don't understand either. And "statism", an Ayn Rand word, is a nearly meaningless concept (like the rest of Rand's 'philosophy'). This administration brought us back from the brink! But if you truly think selfishness and cruelty are virtues, then I guess you wouldn't mind being a tool of giant corporations.....listen, man- this Ayn Rand bullshit is second in stupidity only to Scientology.

March 24 at 6:13am · 

Colby Codner 

OK Eric, I don't recall Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or Ford ever taking over GM, the banking sector, etc. Government control over the private business sector have precedents in Fascism, Socialism and Communism. To me, the term "Statism" encompasses this idea that the government controls the market instead of the entrepreneur and investor and is thus, valid.

Do you honestly believe that this administration pulled us "back from the brink"? Seriously? HAHAHAHAHA. Sorry man, but Obama has spent in one year what it took Bush 5 years to spend, and Obama is ramping up spending (and further taking the economy down with him). I didn't like Bush because he wasn't a fiscal conservative. But for Obama, and his supporters, to keep blaming Bush for any given problem is disingenuous and childish.

March 24 at 6:30am

Eric Steinberg 

Who is being disingenuous? If you really thought all gummint spending was bad, wouldn't you quit your city job? Obama has brought us back from so much more than a depression (how 'bout America's global image? Habeas Corpus? Torture as foreign policy? the gutting of EPA?)- but don't believe me, listen to the CBO. They say HCR will relieve debt, not add to it. And they say the stimulus worked.

You speak as if you wanted nothing less than complete lassez-faire. But regulation is part of any economic system. I for one don't like getting raped by big corporations. In point of actual fact, every time markets are deregulated our economy slides toward depression. Even if you truly are out for nobody but yourself (which I don't believe), you'd choose a regulated market over an unregulated one because it performs better.

All this talk about "tyrrany", "socialism", etc. is heat without light, bad analogies; in other words, fear talking. Old Ayn had the same problem- she did not present analysis, only empty hyperbole.

March 24 at 3:06pm · 

Loraine Marks Hirth 

I would guess that Colby would very much like for the US Constitution to again be the supreme law of the land. But, hey, why talk of law and order when you can simply call someone a racist, and hide behind sophistry?

March 24 at 8:51pm

Colby Codner 

Eric, I don't have a city job. We get contract work from various municipalities, but those are backed by local taxes that the citizens vote for.

As for Obama's ability to manage our global image, his track record would indicate that he's doing a less than stellar job. He's often derided by his peers (France, Russia, etc.), and the Europeans are finally beginning to wake up to the fact that Obama is just an empty suit. I can provide articles if you's like from foreign sources.

The Stimulus didn't work. I'll begin sending you economic articles that can detail this if you'd like. The HAMP thing is also another colossal government failure..

Eric, you are right that some minimum amount of regulation is needed. We need some simple rules that investment bankers can't easily circumvent. We don't need more back-door taxation however.

My tax money should be spent only on the enumerated powers given to the government in the founding documents, and not on some social welfare issue. I shouldn't be punished through increased taxation for someone else's poor life style decisions. People here, even extremely poor people here, have opportunities that an average person in India would die for. Honestly, I have no sympathy, or tolerance for people here that say that they are being oppressed somehow, and that they simply can't work. They need to starve.

I am not afraid of change, but I will fight against what I perceive to be diminishing personal freedoms at the mandate of some elitist oligarch. Or, in our former military parlance, "Obama can go eat a bag of dicks". But, I do appreciate the sentiment that you somehow know better for me.

The government is far too large in my opinion, and could function with a quarter of its current employees, and a tenth of it's programs. Charity was once the function of the churches, and not the government. Sure, nobody could pay off their Escalade on church charity, but nobody starved too much either. In other words, the person seeking charity was confronted with the consequences of their situation very quickly, and then motivated to be proactive in making their situation better----usually through hard work. Our government just gives away money with absolutely no consequence, and we have multi-generational fiscal parasites to show for it. Time for that to stop...

March 24 at 9:25pm

Eric Steinberg 

Where do you get your news? And how do you know so much about what Europeans think? Please send me anything you think will help my state of mind; but I can't guarantee I'll understand it (I get vapor lock when I hear the word 'economics'). But those are trifles....I guess we do have opposing views as regards the purpose of government. Even that is small potatoes, though- the most important thing in our discussion is fear. A lot of people (you?) think we are in a Constitutional Crisis. I submit that we are not- not legally, not financially, not morally. Forget for a moment (if you can) how you or I feel about the President personally. Ask yourself this: has procedure been maintained, in the operation of this government? Has power been usurped in any way? Please show your work.

March 25 at 3:23pm · 

Loraine Marks Hirth 

The enumerated powers doctrine holds that the federal government has no general powers and no unexpressed powers. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution defines the powers of Congress in eighteen clauses. Clauses 2 through 17 allow Congress, for example, to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to enact nationwide laws for bankruptcies, patents, copyrights, and naturalization; to establish post offices, post roads, federal courts, and a federal city; and to raise and support an army, navy, and militia.

Under the enumerated powers doctrine, the powers listed in these clauses are exhaustive.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined," Madison famously said in Federalist No. 45. "Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite." 

March 25 at 4:12pm

Colby Codner 

Thanks Loraine, that is how I interpret the Federal government's limited scope of power as well.

Eric,

China
http://www.chandlerswatch.com/2010/02/09/cold-war-brewing-between-china-and-us/

Japan
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/on-president-obamas-bow-to-the-japanese-emperor-an-academic-friend-writes-that-both-the-left-and-the-right-are-wrong.html

Russia
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/18/1409370.aspx

The UK and France
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100011892/even-the-french-think-barack-obama-is-weak/

and these articles really don't even encompass the Obama administrations disastrous economic polices, but instead focus on his character.

I will be pretty busy this weekend, but can continue to forward you dozens of articles, blogs, etc from various foreign and domestic sources that outline what a colossal failure this administration has been to date.

Both parties share the blame for the mess that we are currently in, but this administration has really screwed the pooch. He has pushed forth his spending agenda, and it has irrevocably damaged our economy. The best thing that states like mine could do would be to secede and return to the black letter law of the original founding documents. At least then, we could get back to a more free state.

March 25 at 7:36pm

Eric Steinberg 

I'm glad to have a couple of constitutional scholars to help me out....but you still haven't answered the question. This "doctrine" of which you speak is not part of the Constitution, but only an interpretation of it. Please tell me how, when and where this administration has done anything unconstitutional.

March 25 at 7:51pm · 

Colby Codner 

The government took over (backstopped) private enterprises. That is the point where I became alarmed. These were companies with stock (albeit lousy stock, but privately held stock all the same). This means that there were individual, private investors. When the government came in and took over, they overstepped their delineated powers set forth in the founding documents. What is even more worrisome, was the shear size of the market segment the government captured in doing so. The government is supposed to leave the businesses alone.

With AIG, Citi, and Goldman Sachs in tow, they had a clear advantage over the market, and used it to manipulate the market via high frequency trading (100's of trades per second, but no real volume) with the SEC's blessing. Not only ythat, but they also bailed out Fannie and Freddie, and now there is a strong liklihood the the holder of your mortgage is now the federal government.

The entire market is rigged right now, and all historical modeling algorithms and techniques that have worked in the past currently don't work because of this. However, this is unsustainable, and will, at some point be rendered useless, and the market will come back down. I watch the bond market everyday, and there have been some interesting things going on this week.

This administration has been like the anti-Midas economically. Everything they have touched has turned to shit. It's sort of incomprehensible that they could accidentally be so horrible at this, but they are. The only people profiting are the large banks...

March 25 at 8:48pm

Loraine Marks Hirth 

It is unconstitutional to make a law requiring citizens to purchase insurance. Anything not explicitly assigned to the federal government, by default, is left to the states. Don't even try to give me a list of things that the federal govt. is doing outside of the US Constitution. I already know, and I very much want them to stop.

March 26 at 2:12pm

Eric Steinberg 

Loraine, maybe you can list them for me- but I doubt it. There is no law requiring any citizens to purchase anything. You've misinterpreted the HCR bill. Colby, lemme get this straight: you think we're in a constitutional crisis because of the way the market is going? And how do you square this with Paul Krugman? I mean, he's got a Nobel, and (forgive me) you don't.

March 26 at 3:34pm · 

Eric Steinberg 

Look, I'm not trying to put you or anybody else down- but the fact remains that you are advocating SECESSION. You are supporting this position by repeating talking points from right-wing astroturf groups- in other words, LIES. This makes you, in effect, the TOOLS of the corporations behind these astroturf groups. I'll be honest- I hated W, andhis cabinet, about as much as I've ever hated anyone, and I'm a Socialist through and through (except for that mile-wide anarchist streak.....). BUT even though I hated that motherfucker, I never advocated seceding, or picking up a gun, or anything like that. Why? Because I believe in this country, I have a sense of ownership about it, and I'm not a goddamn crybaby.

March 26 at 3:55pm · 

Loraine Marks Hirth 

How, exactly, did I misinterpret it?

March 26 at 4:46pm

Colby Codner 

HAHAHAHA, who is crying Eric? Not me.

Hate Bush all you like. Obama is just a little darker shade of W, and a whole lot more narcissistic. Perhaps you didn't quite understand what my point was, and you resort, yet again to how you feel instead of examining the facts. The government cannot control a private business. It not only owns several private businesses, it it in bed with them and manipulating entire markets (at the detriment of the citizenry). I am not sure that I can make it any more clear to you. That is unconstitutional.

You are the one that keeps insisting that I dislike Obama for personal reasons. I dislike big government, and the demagogues that advocate for, and lead it. You can rest assured that in the next election, he will be voted out of office, and we'll most likely get another career politician in---but one that will hopefully somehow drastically reduce the size of the government.

You think that I am a tool of some giant corporation? Please Eric. That is the same argument the SEIU used. They are advocating taking over private 401ks. Are you on board with that too?

What sort of surprises me, is that with your Jewish roots, that you can't (or refuse to) recognize the stark similarities between Obama and Hitler. Don't think that I am trying to goad you, but really, look at it objectively.

You fail to recognize something else. I have a strong and abiding love for my country. Given the political trajectory that we are on, we will soon be a socialist nation. Go read the Constitution again and please show me where the founding fathers instituted a socialist government. They set an extremely limited role for the central government, and left the rest to the states and to the citizens. This administration is clearly against that concept. So, who abandoned the Constitution? It wasn't me. I'd rather secede and use the Constitution as the black letter law of the land instead of living in some socialist cabal. But hey, if you want to live in a socialist regime, go right ahead----it's still a free country. At least for now.

March 26 at 8:38pm

Eric Steinberg 

Sorry Loraine- your opinion doesn't count, because you're a girl. But I'll help you out anyway- Commerce Act, Militia Act of 1790, go look 'em up.

Colby, I only mentioned my feelings to acknowledge bias, so that I could then make the larger point that this administration has not overstepped its bounds vis a vis the constitution. This is an objective fact, regardless of whether you are for big gov't (like me) or small (like you). As far as fascism goes, the only people I see acting like brownshirts these days are the teabaggers who had their own little Kristallnacht, throwing bricks and epithets. To try to pin fascism on Obama is pure paranoid fantasy. As regards socialism, there's nothing in the constitution that precludes it- we could definitely follow the letter of the law and also have a socialist economy (if only....). 

Yesterday at 8:39am · 

Colby Codner 

Eric, you are deflecting again. Please show where in the enumerated powers (sections 8 and 9) that the government can own a private enterprise. Also, QE was supposed to have ended, but is back up and running again (banks buying for the Fed). You are correct that this administration didn't "overstep", it steamrolled over its bounds.

Yesterday at 9:20am

Colby Codner 

Eric, I know that you were trying to make a point with Loraine not being able to vote, but you seem to have forgotten the 19th Amendment. You're kind of showing your ass by trying to be snide....I expected more from you man.

Yesterday at 9:40am