Federal Government Restraint and Restrictions
If you are an American and if you are politically aware or even if you just follow some American politics from time to time you may have heard a good deal about the “few and well-defined” powers of the American government and the restrictions placed on the federal government by the US Constitution.
What is rarely taught or even mentioned, much less examined … is the reason for these restrictions on federal powers. As it was initially founded, the federal government was secondary to the states. With the implementation of the seventeenth amendment to the US constitution state sovereignty was effectively forfeited.
Despite that, there is a very good reason that our founding fathers sought to limit the powers of the federal government.
Unlike a great many of the American Aristocracy and Establishment Elite … I mean the political elite ruling class … I mean the American politician of today, our founding fathers were very wise and gifted with a bit of foresight into the potential for growth within our nation.
They envisioned a day when the US would be just as large and perhaps just as well populated as it is today … and they knew that it would be too expensive, too involved and too in-depth for a federal body to control for a host of reasons … some of which we will look at here.
In the US there are somewhere between three-hundred and thirty to three-hundred and fifty million people depending on how many people who are living there illegally are counted.
While dealing with such large numbers may be nice if we were discussing our personal finances, when it comes to data and statistics, such large numbers make it extremely difficult to gather vast amounts of data … as evidenced by the efficiency of the US Census Bureau, the IRS, the DMV, the Welfare programs, Food Stamp programs and all of the associated fraud.
Quite frankly, the nation as a whole is far too large for any single government to regulate. These days, not only is the American government attempting to regulate society but actually control it and micro-manage our lives and daily affairs. To think that any such effort could ever end well for the people is not naive but foolish and even dangerous.
Take the US Department of Health for instance. Among their many tasks is that of measuring obesity levels among the American population. Now while the presidential administration has laid claim to this being a matter of national security, I rather doubt that but it is quite relevant to this observation and a good example of how even the best ideas and constructs can go bad when too much information is involved.
To understand that … you also need to understand the irony of that last comment. The fact that there is too much data involved is limited to the fact that there are too many people in the US to accurately measure thus only a limited amount of actual data is taken from any individual.
For this example we will stick to what are in all likelihood familiar names and faces around the globe … movie stars … or to be more precise, action stars. According to the data and calculations of the American government Rocky or Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren, Ving Rhames and a host of other action stars and professional athletes are “deathly-obese” or obese to the point where it poses a serious health risk … even Arnold Schwarzenegger at the height of his career was considered to be deathly obese despite the fact that he was in good enough shape to win Mr World contests.
Now let’s take a look at the potential ramifications of national level government control on the local level.
What if the national government were put in charge of all speed limits rather than merely setting “safe mandates” for all the states to follow? What would the speed limits actually look like?
Would we have a single speed limit for all roads, public, private, interstate, intrastate, highways and freeways?
Would the federal government spend excessive amounts of taxpayer money to fund studies and research where schools were, where parks were and where they should lower speed limits?
Ahhhhhhhhh, but the federal government does not try to regulate speed limits around the nation for this exact reason … I can hear statists gloating in the success of their arguments already … but my next question for you is … if they cannot do so, why do they attempt to do so in so many other areas of our lives?
Is the federal government somehow better suited to decide what type of vocational courses are offered in rural Louisiana than those people with boots on the ground in Louisiana?
Then why are they making such laws!?
Some people claim that the federal government is doing this to save lives. If that were truly the case, there would be a national speed limit of some twenty-five miles per hour or less as that is statistically the point where most traffic accidents begin showing appreciable signs of fatality rates.
It is not now nor has it ever been about saving lives. It is all about government control over the individual and individual dependence on the national government to solve all of life’s woes and ills.
The fact that it is an impossible task at the national level seems to escape the notice of most people for whatever reason. The answer is quite simple and in fact was already given to all of us.
There needs to be a distinct separation between the powers and governance of the states and the nation as a whole and local districts, counties, cities and townships on down the line.
Anything less is merely asking for undue interference in our daily lives, out-of-control “administrative” and “bureaucratic” costs and less individual rights.
Anything more is mere foolishness and an abject exercise in futility.
Let us know what you think please!