novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts in Federalism

The reason I first went to The Angry Bear was posts this one. (Too bad it’s infested with intolerant liberals in charge.)

The author of this post is the current (and last) Postmaster of Webster, NC, and speaks of his area of expertise, the United States Postal Service.

It always confuses the big-government liberals, stuck in the false-dichotomy mindset that says if they support Big Government and all Big Government programs, then conservatives opposed to Big Government must oppose all Big Government programs. What they cannot seem to wrap their minds around is the concept that we DO support the U.S. government’s running those programs which a the U.S. Constitution says it is supposed to run. Among these are the Army, the Navy, and the Postal Service.

So why this fascination (among conservatives mostly, I suppose — I’m sure you will correct me if I am wrong) with the idea that the Postal Service is supposed to be self-supporting? We do not expect the Army to be self-supporting. It probably could be. We could probably sell enough weapons, and rent out enough troops, to make it so. We do not expect the Department of the Interior to be self-supporting. We could probably place high enough rents on mining and grazing operations, and high enough fees for visitors, to make it so.

The point is that profits are not what the government is about. Efficiency is desirable, but the primary mission of those agencies is to provide the services, not to turn a profit.

This is why we conservatives oppose Big Government — because Big Government is inefficient. That is why the Constitution cedes to the U.S. government only those things that cannot be done by the States and the People. At the time of our founding, the operations of the Postal Service could not be done by any other agency than the government of the United States. If, in the age of email, UPS, and Federal Express, we think that that situation no longer pertains, then we should amend the Constitution to remove that Power from the U.S. government. But killing a government program by forcing it to turn a profit, knowing that government programs are by nature inefficient, is, at best, disingenuous.

I have read till my eyes were bloodshot. I picked the articles I felt most appropriate and informative. If you REALLY, REALLY want to know what you are up against, read them. Yes, they can be a VERY long read but we’ll worth it if you seek good understanding. For me, the more I read, the more confused I got because of all the ambiguity, inference, and just the “muddy lines” of acceptance. Know this: the Executive Branch is more powerful than you may have thought, and without constraints or watchdogs in all matters, can easily get out of control by things perceived. Bottom line is that we, the people, may suffer greatly for nothing more than political ideology, favoritism to certain groups or individuals, or just visions of grandeur. This is a case for me of “the more you know, the less you like”. That’s just me.

The first article is a basic primer for very general knowledge.

This article here delves very deeply into pros, cons, and citing examples from various administrations, focusing heavily on the Clinton Administration.

And, lastly, this article , which talks further about more presidents and their orders.

There are plenty more articles out there but I learned enough and picked these 3 that would allow you to learn enough. I guess perception is what is needed here as to what type of America is being built. Most of these orders don’t get reviewed by successive administrations, which means we are stuck with them. Not good. Not good at all.

I am a bit perplexed over what just happened in the House. Trey Gowdy R-SC just introduced a bill called “Enforce The Law Act” which would make the Executive Branch enforce any laws passed by Congress. But the Constitution already has that provision so the Act seems redundant. What is at issue here is that the Executive Branch and its legal arm, the Justice Department, are not abiding by those Constitutional mandates. So if you have an idiot that knows nothing about Constitutional law, who has a pen and a phone to change/eliminate anything he pleases, and no one is suing him on these grievous breeches of the Constitution, how will this law be any different?

Now supposedly the Act that was passed will allow a suit to expedite through the courts. I thought judges and courts had their own agenda? I surely have no trust in the Judicial Branch. And why would it be a suit? Is there some compensatory outcome involved? I would think it a criminal action and adjudicated as such. But when you read the article, a few Democrats voted for the Act along with the Republicans. Huh? You mean that this Act, with established basis in the Constitution, wasn’t voted UNANIMOUS? That tells me that not only is there a problem in the Executive and Judicial branches but also in the Legislative Branch as well. Either we are failing our children in school by NOT spending and dedicating enough time to the Constitution and its understanding or there is such a prevalent nature of lawlessness in politics that it has become as common place as putting shoes on your feet. Or both.

We are constantly being informed/told/reminded that we are a “civilized” society. That word alone has caused the lawless to take advantage of the masses with impunity, in my mind. I hear always that we can “vote these people out” and the ballot box is our weapon. Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be the case since there are too many stupid voters who refuse to be informed or understand the rule of law. These “voters” work on the premise of “me” and “free” for the most part when they cast there votes. Some vote on color. How does this benefit “all”? It doesn’t. Term limits are a good start but far more is necessary. Harsh consequences need to be instilled on those holding office so that there will always be pause before someone seeks office. Me, personally; I am not averse to immediate extrication from office with a good public beating in the town square. But that is just me. I grew up with the understanding of how viable consequences are in all aspects of life–especially when it affects the nation and it’s citizens as a whole. Otherwise, show me a rational for having laws at all.

I just heard on the news that 750 firemen may lose their jobs in California, and nursing home patients may not get meals. Aren’t nursing homes under Medicaid? Isn’t firefighting and police part of county/city/state taxes and the obligation of those jurisdictions? Are we subsidising areas of state obligation that we shouldn’t? will government subsidies of farmers mean a shortage of food or just higher prices at the grocers where EACH individual decides to purchase or not? Other than by direct contract with the feds, I don’t understand how employment in states are directly affected by sequester. I’m sure it is very complicated for the layman, like myself, to understand. What is so complicated about why states can’t take care of their own budgets without having the government (that is, every citizen in every state) having a monetary hand in most all aspects? Did I miss something in the Constitution about this? Whatever happened to state sovereignty, self governing and the like? Why the need for governors? I don’t get it?

Sign at corner store: “No hoodies or masks allowed”. Sign on credit union door: “Remove hats and sunglasses”. Either the proprietor will shoot you if you don’t comply or he will know when he is about to be robbed. Feel good statements brought on by hysteria so that you can lose a few common freedoms. Ok, don’t do business there. But what about mortgages to unqualified individuals? Private healthcare? Making state stores sell arms illegally to individuals forced from the US gov’t? National edict on standards for state public schools? US gov’t trade taxes for state goods? How about entitlement programs? How about no US gov’t budget which affects commerce, industry and personal economics? Un-elected individuals that make punishable and costly rules for all to abide? Federal courts were ideology rules and law is MADE instead of discerned, especially when it circumvents the Constitution–the law of the land? These are just some of what is happening outside the scope of our Constitution and circumventing that which is not under federal purview but some belonging to the states.

What is happening here is the breaking of the pact of the Republic with its individual states. We shouldn’t be entertaining the idea of a DC statehood but we are. West Virginia set up an illegal government, seceded from Virginia and was recognized by the Union government….in 1863. If the Confederacy was illegal then so are the 2 examples I just cited. Joining the union is no different than marriage–if it doesn’t work out then you get a divorce. An allegiance is as good as the pact it was made from. You don’t stayed married for the children’s sake if that marriage is very detrimental to all involved. Same with a state. The US gov’t HAS (not had) distinct and definable rules to follow. When those rules are broken, that would be considered a treasonous act perpetrated on all the people and the states. When inaction to remove the law-breakers result, one outcome is left. We are a nation following laws that no man is above and that the US gov’t must follow. When people succumb to nuances that take their freedom, and allow its subtlety to direct their lives, they lose that which was freedom and become subjects–slaves to the will of the master–the gov’t. It is not nor should it ever be “We, the government..”. We are at a place in history where the US gov’t needs to be handcuffed from doing any more harm, as well reinstating those freedoms being lost or the states need to be pushed to exodus from this enveloping monster. It’s better to be right and move on then be complacent and go down with a sinking ship.

One of my pet peeves for many decades (and this goes way back to Va.’s Blue Laws) has been the arcane laws left on the books for the state and federal governments. This article brought that back into mind. We pay our Congress to go on breaks and vacation with nothing to show for it when it comes to legislation. We have more laws on the books than we need that pertain to the people but not enough laws that control the Congress, which is another battle for another day. I believe that congressional minions continually work while their masters are away. Then why not have those minions examining laws every 5 years or so to see whether they need to be addressed for re-vamping or elimination? Times change, economics change and the lame duck session is a perfect time to address this. It can eliminate laws from the roles that have long since out-lived their usefulness and modify others to come to current requirements of the times. Congress gets paid the same either way and there is probably tons of monies that could be saved in the process. I think it an idea that is surely come to its time.

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, we see a good example of the reason we have a United States government:

[To] provide for the… and general Welfare of the… States

Yes, I intentionally cut the word United from United States. It is, after all, just an adjective. By removing that adjective, I wish to direct your attention to the States as individual entities, not the United States as a single entity. As Benjamin Zimmerman of the University of Pennsylvania pointed out, the United States was originally considered a plural noun, not a singular noun.

The primary Power given to Congress was to Defend the States, and to provide for their General Welfare. That is where FEMA comes in. FEMA is an example of what our national government should be. It is simple not economical for each individual State to prepare for all possible contingencies — floods, earthquakes, blizzards, etc. Furthermore, the preparations of an individual State are likely to be rendered inoperative by the very emergency they are designed to alleviate. If a FEMA center is destroyed, operations can be directed from a center outside the afflicted area.

This is not “big government,” this is right government. Our national government is a creation of the States, and was intended for the Welfare of the States. If you want your government to provide for your personal welfare, then look to your State and local governments, not to the national government.