Want Diversity in Representation Try Enumeration :: U4Prez, Social Networking For Politics

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it by the States, are reserved to the States respectivley, or to the people."

Ahhhh, the 10th ammendment. It generally outlines the division of authority between the federal and state governments. But has it been forgotten in this era of big government and infringement on states rights?

States are small government entities in the scope of the federal government. They are small enough to represent and reflect a more accurate representation of the personalities, priorities, character and history of thier inhabitants. They have diverse resources, climates, geography, industry and population. No two states are alike. The same could be said in regards to the burgs, towns, cities, hamlets and towns within the states borders. The diversity of the localities are what gives the states thier individual identities and shape the thoughts of thier citizens.

With a better understanding of the diversity of thier inhabitants are states more likely to better reflect the interests of thier citizens than the federal government? Are localities more likely than the states to share the views of thier citizens because the decision makers live amongst those they govern and are affected by thier own decisions? Is the interaction between the people and thier representatives on state and local level easier and on a more direct line?

When the federal government acts beyond the constitutional limits set forth in the 10th ammendment it is assailing the purest and most reflective form of representation by erasing the local and state level decision makers. The federal government, in no possible way, can entirely comprehend the diversity of interests that are affected by it's decisions. Sticking to that, it cannot possibly assertain the costs and benefits of it's decisions on each community. It is not it's intended purpose after all. The federal government seeks to dictate to rather than to represent the people.

Diversity, although spoken in the federal circle, is impossible to attain there. On a state level if an individual concludes they are bound by decisions made in thier state by state or local authorities, they can move to another state or locality that more fits thier beliefs and diverse interests. One states loss is anothers gain. If a state raises it's taxes on businesses, those businesses can pick up and leave. Moving to another state whose interests are more business friendly, taking with it the jobs and revenue it provides. When the federal government makes these decisions and businesses and people leave the country, those decision affect the entire country and all of it's citizens, not just one states or anothers.

The states can learn from one another through thier diversity. They can learn through the mistakes and successes they have individually to better govern themselves for the future. If the federal government is making the decisions and they are mistakes, who do they learn from and where is there to go? The entire country is affected and no one is there to reflect on to make the proper changes for success.

So there in lies the question. Has the federal government infringing and overstepping it's constitutional authority helped build a better America, or would the states keeping thier rights lead to better representation? I think the past is reflective and the future is telling. Let the states govern. Let the constitution stand. "For the people, by the people" does not mean the people with the power, it is menat for ALL.

Comments

Good solid blog Smashey.

Obviously and respectfully FNG you missed the point behind the blog. If a state fails such as NY currently has and is, it is much easier to go to another state than to leave the country. The state can more easily fix itself and learn from it's mistakes than the fed can. Other states can learn from NY and CA and not take that path. If one state goes down, another picks up because of new inhabitants and companies. If the fed fails it hurts the entire country. Thats why the states were originally given the power. If one fails, another goes on. If the Federal governemtnfails, the entire country fails as well.

Boy I sure am glad nobody is on right now. I can ramble on, like a fool. Ü

The constitution, with all it's considerations for the individual states was written in a time when people would actually fight for their state. Would you give your life for your state? How about your country?

All the things people like to complain about - crime, over-regulation, poor education, high taxes, poor wages, lack of jobs, are really mostly due to poor management by the states. However, because our media is large and national, it's the federal government that gets the microscope and people tend to demand improvements from the federal government which should really be contingent upon the various states themselves. The federal government gets the bum rap while the states get free reign to do what they will, without oversight. Medicaid goes through each state, where corruption and innefficiency make it a giant clusterfuck. Be careful what you wish for.

State governments are far, far more corrupt than the federal government and lack oversight.

The electoral college was a means to ensure states maintained power over the general electorate. It needs to be abolished.

Oh and by the way, it's usually a state that will infringe on individual's constitutional rights and thank god the federal government and our constitution and supreme court is there to protect the people from the abuses of the states.

Again, playing devil's advocate, We don't even need the states. They are an unneccessary bureacracy that serve themselves, and create political empires.

You're ovviously NOT from the state of New York! hahahahaha. The state of New York is a police state with it's foot on the collective necks of it's citizens. It's a police state. If you want to get a permit to carry a pistol in the state of New York, you have to jump through so many hoops it would make your head spin. The first thing you have to do is get hand-written (in black ink) affidavits from four of your neighbors attesting to the fact that you are competent to carry a gun and stating why. They cannot be relatives. Then you have to submit your records and affidavits to the county judge, take a course, appear before the judge, open your medical records, and have a sheriff's investigation. I wanted to borrow a jet ski to take to a lake we are staying at. As it turns out, you can no longer operate a jet-ski in NY without taking a 4-day long (10-hours total) course on boating and passing a 50-question test. And for God's sake don't get caught talking on a cellphone while driving, or without a seat belt, or riding a bicycle or motorcycle without a helmet, etc, etc. It's actually the state that affects your live far more than the federal government. I am an American, way, way, way before I am a New Yorker I can tell you that. Screw the individual states and their corrupt political machines.

Great blog smash.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Want Diversity in Representation? Try Enumeration.

Comments