Darkwater RetreatSearching far and wide for signs of intelligence.

I recently heard an economics debate where one guy who was upset about the loss of manufacturing jobs in the country was wanting to erect walls around the country to prevent businesses from leaving, expanding, or outsourcing to other countries. It’s a bad argument, and one that’s all too common.

Look at it this way: Putting up barriers on (as well as demonizing) businesses who are trying to flee an oppressive tax code and regulatory system would be like going over to a house where a wife is continuously getting beat, blaming her for getting what’s coming to her, then locking her in the house with the abusive husband. In this instance, the US is the house, the wife is the private sector, and the husband is the government.

When a business (wife) finally decides enough is enough, she should have the freedom to leave and find a place that’s appreciates her more and allows her more liberty in which she can live, work, and prosper. Incidentally, India appears to be more liberty-minded in economic terms than the US. Isn’t that sad?

#

Harry Reid said:

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.”

Sorry Harry, but if you’re going to make an analogy, you’d better make sure your own hands are clean first. It was the Democrat party that supported slavery (Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, was a Republican), denied blacks federal jobs (Wilson, FDR), and only voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act by a 64% margin in the House. Democrats in the Senate even tried filibustering the bill with the the longest filibuster in US history.

This is the same man that, from the floor of the Senate, sought to censure Rush Limbaugh (a private citizen) after taking a couple sentences way out of context. If you’ll pull up that link, you’ll notice that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama signed it.

#

A good friend of mine, who is a Liberal, argued one of the above points by claiming “those were the Dixie-crats” that filibustered the Civil Rights bill.

There is a major point that should be taken into consideration:

This is a rare instance in which the Democrat Party has not been fully banded together as they have been ever since President Jackson, at least enough to create a majority. It should also be noted that this was before C-SPAN and 24-hour media coverage. I’m wondering how many Northern Democrats didn’t silently support their Southern counterparts.

#

I live in Kansas City. We’re buried in snow and flyover country is seeing record cold temperatures.

In a case of extreme irony, a little over a week before the first big ice/snow storm hit the area, a couple of eggheads wrote an op-ed in the Kansas City Star with a synopsis (on the main opinion page) that starts out with: “Global Warming is a serious threat to Missouri…” (Notice all of the global warming on and around my house to the right).

It’s amazing that these people can still enjoy some sort of credibility despite all of the massive hits to their movement, “Climate-gate” being the capstone.

By the way, click on that last link for a good article on arctic tree migration and climate changes in relation to Earth’s axial “wobble.”

#

I’ve been in two rather large debates over the abortion bit in both the House and Senate bills by people that claim abortion is not funded in either. This is despite me quoting from and linking to the actual bills. And they say people from my side of the aisle are uninformed.

#

Sen. Chris Dodd (D, CT) is retiring. For those that haven’t been keeping up, he’s one of the main architects of the housing bubble and subsequent financial collapse. In true Democrat Party fashion, where a big fat “fail” guarantees promotion, there is speculation he might now go to the Treasury Department.

#

Speaking of Harry Reid, who is one of the most despicable politicians our country has ever produced, he has now thankfully earned the label of “Most Vulnerable Incumbent.” It also appears as if he is now taking a page from Al Gore’s playbook and only allowing certain people in to hear his speech on the need for his party’s health care bill.

#

As Paul Harvey used to ask: Good day?

The Senate Health Care bill is now up for debate, and I must say that my general stance is that this bill is  just as horrible as the House version.

“C’mon now Scholar, you’re just being a right-wing kook. We need health care reform!”

No, I’m not being kooky here, and I’ll agree that we need reform. But I stand by that assessment.

Go ahead, ask me why. Come on, do it! Do it now!

Fine, I’ll just tell you. I did what most Congressmen refuse to do: I read the bill. And no matter which way you slice it, this bill in no way fits the actual definition of reform. It’s more akin to the definition of coup d’etat.

No, I’m not fluffing up my essay here by saying that. I could probably spend 50 pages pointing out specific parts in this bill that prove my point, but then nobody would read it. So instead, I took out 11 of the most egregious parts, listed them below, and showed where you can find them. So pull up the bill and let us dive in, shall we?

*

Abortions are still being covered by your tax dollars.

And this is despite that amendment tacked on to the end of the House bill at the last minute.

Section 2245, starting on pages 140, has basically the same language as the House bill regarding abortion:

“(B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED. — The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.”

Moving down to Section 1202 on page 144, it gets a bit more specific:

“(a) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION. – Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.”

What they’re doing here is protecting Federalism by destroying Federalism. State laws will still be in effect…but if you live in a state that prohibits abortion coverage or mandates parental notification, you’re going to be funding abortions in states that do not have such limitations. That’s the problem with a federally funded program. Much like your gasoline tax dollars from Gatortown, FL being spent to subsidize light rail in Portland, OR, if you live in a state that prohibits tax dollars spent on abortion, your tax dollars will still go to fund some 14 y/o in San Fransisco who wants an abortion.

*

They’re still trying to kill Federalism.

If we turn to page 165-166,  we see that it doesn’t matter if a State opts into the system or not. The federal government WILL come into your state and put their system in place by 2013.

You know, I seem to remember quite a few supporters of this bill claiming States could opt out if they wanted to. This means that those people are liars, or they are clueless. Which ever it is, neither of those adjectives are really good.

*

Congress can still opt out.

Again, as with the House bill, the Senate has given Congress the ability to opt out if they see fit. Page 156 covers Congress in the government run exchange and at first glance it appears the Senate has corrected this problem that was so blatant in the House bill by stating:

“(i) REQUIREMENT. — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress of congressional staff shall be health plans that are –

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).”

However, look at the text I underlined and bolded. What the Senate is doing here is saying “Don’t worry, we’ll be in the same boat as you common folk” while still retaining the power to opt out at any time simply by passing an amendment. Now, anybody with just a cursory interest in politics knows that the best way to do this would be to just attach it to a defense spending bill or any other legislation that they know will pass.

If you’re reading this and it hasn’t clicked yet as to whether this is ok or not under the Constitution, see here to run this bit of the bill against Federalist No. 64.

*

Yeah, it really is a coup d’etat.

Starting on page 269, titled “Subpart B–Eligibility Determinations”, is the section that will literally shoot the private insurance market in the head. The specific part of this section that is really telling is down on page 284 in part (2) (A):

“The Secretary shall establish a separate appeals process for employers…[sic]…the employer may be liable for a tax imposed by section 4980 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to an employee because of a determination that the employer does not provide minimum essential coverage through an employer sponsored plan or that the employer does provide that coverage but it is not affordable coverage with respect to an employee.”

“C’mon now Scholar. What does all of that mumbo-jumbo mean anyway?”

Well, it means that employers, including small businesses, will be audited for the health care insurance they provide to their employees. If said insurance doesn’t match up to the arbitrary guidelines the government imposes, those businesses will be fined. It also means that if an employer can’t afford a gold-plated plan that covers port wine stain removal, they’ll just stop offering health insurance to their employees, who will then be forced to go on the government plan.

*

They’re going to make it an election issue.

Throughout the bill there are numerous references to the year 2013. That’s when these programs go into effect. The taxes, however, start immediately. It’s the only way the CBO was able to score the bill at under $1 Trillion. Interestingly enough, if you actually read that CBO report, you’ll notice that the whole “deficit reduction” or “deficit neutral” talk being promoted by certain politicians is true………but only because in addition to jumpstarting the taxes 3 years before paying out benefits, they’re going to cut Medicaid reimbursements. Now, I normally don’t get on a partisan kick with all of this, but since the irony is so great I feel the need to point something out: This is a Democrat owned and operated bill….but it’s Democrats who consistently run negative campaign ads in Florida saying that Republicans will be the ones that want to steal senior’s Medicaid/Medicare.

But never mind that. Turn to page 1979 and read the title about half-way down: “REVENUE PROVISIONS.” If that doesn’t make your bowels want to empty right here and now, then you’re smoking something and need to share. Let’s now look at some of those provisions…

*

They are taxing hospitals…and you.

It sounds extremely absurd, using legislation that’s purported to help the health care industry to tax the very places that industry operates in, but then again this is the government. Starting on page 2001 and extending 5 pages, the bill lists a bunch of arbitrary guidelines for which hospitals will be exempted from this tax. Then on page 2006, they’re imposing a $50,000 tax which will start immediately.

What this means: Hospitals have to cover this new cost, and the only way they can do that is for us to pay more. Medicare/aid payments being what they are, our private coverage premiums will be going up, as well as any out-of-pocket costs for those of us that handle business that way.

*

They are taxing drug makers…and you.

You know, those evil companies that produce life-saving drugs. If they sell enough of their drugs to the point of making $400 Million, they can expect to be taxed at 100%. You can find the taxable scale on page 2011, and be expected to pay more for your prescriptions if this bill passes.

*

They are showing their ignorance as to how the free-market works…so they’re going to try kill it even deader and tax you more.

I’ve gotten the argument about the need for more competition in the health care field and it’s true. There does need to be more competition, but it needs to be market-based, which means the walls protecting the government-sponsored state monopolies need to be broken down. If you live in New York, you can’t buy a better/cheaper policy from Utah.

What this bill is doing is sending in the referee to play the game, and all of the other insurance carriers have to play against that person that makes all of the rules and decides on the penalties. To start with, the federal government is going to tax your insurance plan (p. 2026). An analogy with that would be that the your team is being forced to run 50 wind sprints before the game starts. Sure the bill makes a distinction on taxing only “high-cost employer sponsored health coverage”, but what constitutes “high-cost?” With all of the mandates in place, how can one get a cheap plan that falls outside those boundaries?

Oh, wait, they explain it further down: $8,500 for a single person plan and $23,000 of a family plan.

Now, what this means is that you will be taxed. Well, your employer is going to be taxed for sponsoring your plan, but shit tends to roll downhill, which means your next raise or any subsequent benefits will be used to pay this new tax. That is, if your employer will even be able to afford to stay in business.

*

The neediest will be taxed…and so will you.

On page 2020, we find the insidious title “IMPOSITION OF ANNUAL FEE ON MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURERS AND IMPORTERS.”

The next 5 pages covers all of the definitions interspersed with legalese. Now, I have heard that tampons qualify as medical devices (they do), but according to this section they’re not being taxed. Instead, only those falling into the [FDA guidline] Class III category will be taxed. Those include heart monitors, heart pumps, pacemakers, defibrillators, artificial hips/knees, diagnostic x-ray machines, etc.

So let me get this straight: We have all of these amazing medical breakthroughs; devices that will not only keep you from dying, but bring you back to life if you do. They’re expensive already, as many politicians have told us…and their fix is to add another tax to them?

Incidentally, condoms are also listed as Class III. I’d make a joke about that being fine because we’re all getting free abortions, but I don’t have anyone here to give me a rimshot.

*

The “rich” will be taxed…and so will you.

On page 2040, we’re taxing the “rich”, who are defined as anyone making $200k on their own, or $250k if they file jointly. With that threshold, it means that small business owners and LLC’s that file on their individual returns will be taxed.

The numbers? Well, to start out with the government is going to tax 1.45% of their income next year. If you jump down to page 2043, you’ll notice that the amount automatically jumps another .5% in 2013.

*

You will be taxed for making choices about your own body.

There is one area of the health care field that resembles the free market. It’s been growing steadily for a couple of decades now, the costs have come down dramatically (opening up to even the lower-middle classes), and all because the simple supply/demand economics rule has been allowed to operate on its own: Cosmetic surgery.

You’d think that this glaring example of the merits of laissez-faire capitalism would be picked up and used as an example of what we should do. Right?

That’s a negative, Ghost Rider. In true government fashion the Senate bill seeks to impose an additional tax on people seeking cosmetic surgery. Page 2045 covers this new 5% tax hike, which means that if you opt to spend your hard-earned money to fix your nose, get rid of a persistent double-chin, get that six-pack that you’ve never been able to achieve despite decades of crunches, get that mole removed, take out that scar, or to even get your breasts reduced, you now have to pay a specific tax for what people in DC apparently view as a taxable privilege.

In terms of numbers, let’s say your procedure costs $2,000. The government is arbitrarily going to tack on a $100 tax. This starts on January 1st, 2010.

*

So there you go. Like I mentioned in the beginning, I could go on with 50 pages or so pointing this stuff out, but I’ll leave it be at this point (as if even these points weren’t enough) and pass the torch along to you.

As Paul Harvey used to ask: Good day?

There are people among us who think they know the Constitution, but seriously lack that knowledge.  They seem to think that states have no rights to make laws – yes, because they are “Unconstitutional”.  It would seem as though they completely glossed over the Separation of Powers clause and the Tenth Amendment of the very document they claim to know so much about.

Yes, Virginia, the states DO have the ‘right’ to create their own laws.  They truly do!  It’s right in….wait for it…the CONSTITUTION!  Really, it’s there…it’s known as Federalism.  Federalism can be defined as a division of governmental powers between a central government and the states.

Now for a brief history lesson.  The framers of the Constitution had familiarity with various forms of government.  While still under Great Britain, the original colonies experienced a unitary type of government.  While they enjoyed a great deal of autonomy, they were constantly reminded that they were, in fact, colonies.  When the British government attempted to exert greater control over the colonies following the French/Indian war, the framers learned the drawbacks of a unitary form of government.  The Parliament was far too remote to understand the needs of the colonists as they were separated by three thousand miles of ocean.

This was the inspiration of the Articles of Confederation.  Now, under these Articles the colonies were now states, but were not much happier than when they were colonies.  It is true that as sovereign states they enjoyed complete autonomy and independence.  As colonies they each faced a common enemy in Great Britain, but suppressed their differences.  After the Revolution ended, the differences began to surface.  Slavery was being instituted and was beginning to divide the North and the South.  Trade and currency also caused problems.  As Shay’s Rebellion proved, the national government was one in name only.  Many observers realized the nation was in danger of splintering into thirteen separate nations.

In May of 1787, the framers of the Constitution faced a dilemma.  Some states had already existed for more then 100 years; it would be inconceivable to expect them to surrender their own governmental powers to one omnipotent central government.  It was also conversely clear that the National Government would need to be strengthened if the United States were to survive.

The solution?  The framers created what is now known as a federal form of government.  Under this form of government, the states would surrender SOME of their governmental powers to a national government; other governmental powers would be exercised as they always had been, by the individual states.  Reconciling existing states and a need for a stronger national government resulted in American federalism.

The framers genius was to formulate federalism and set it in motion.  Even for all their wisdom, they could not foresee every contingency.  They created a blueprint for American government and a mere shadow of what would follow.  It was up to future generations to define federalism, each generation would leave its mark on federalism and pass it on to the next.  One generation’s fate to define federalism was by means of Civil War.

Federalism is a learning and evolving process.  Adjustments need to be made, compromises need to be negotiated, accommodations must be worked out until there is finally comfort between both parties.  That comfort is not reached without conflict.

States never dreamed that by ratifying the Constitution they had forfeited their right of sovereignty, but Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) was shown, by the Supreme Court, that a citizen of one state could sue another.  This decision was almost immediately overturned by the passage of the Eleventh Amendment.  This, however, illustrates the uncertainty the new order of federalism created.  As new situations arose, different clauses needed to be interpreted for the first time.  The Supreme Courts early decisions were especially important as they set a precedent upon which later decisions were based.  The powers of the national government have been the major focus of the Supreme Court since the ratification of the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 10 states: “No state shall enter into any Treaty, alliance, or Confederation; grant letters of marquee and Reprisal; coin money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but Gold and silver coin a tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any Imports or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State or Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision of Control of the Congress.

No state shall, without consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in Time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of Delay.”

The proper balance of power between the national government and the states is never-ending in its debate.

So long as state laws do not attempt to over-rule a Constitutional Amendment, there is no reason they can not establish their own laws.  This comes under the Tenth Amendment: “Reserved Powers of the States.  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Unless a state attempts to violate a Constitutional Law, it is absolutely Constitutional for them to create a law.  Example; there is no federal law that says we can’t carry guns, so any gun control laws in the states is in direct violation of the Second Amendment, and therefore, Unconstitutional.

In 1787 the Constitution was completed and went out to the states for ratification with the goal of creating a stronger federal government, but when it reached the states it started running into a lot of opposition by people wary of giving a distant central authority too much power. To combat some of the rumors and anti-federal sentiment, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay issued a series of essays explaining to the people the intricacies of the new government being formed, how it would operate, and the limits on power it would have.It’s safe to say that if there was ever as solid of source material to figure out the original intent of the Constitution, this collection would be it.

The focus of this part is on Federalist 64, written by John Jay and published in 1788.

Before we get into what was written, let’s put this into the proper context and applying it to today. We are currently having a debate about the federal government taking over 1/6th of the US economy (health care), subjecting all of us to the system, while the President and Congress opt out.

Now, I recognize the nature of the office of the Presidency determines what sort of health care s/he will receive, but it is imperative to point out that it should be seen as suspect anyone that will write and/or support a law for which they themselves will not voluntarily subject themselves to. It is also against the intent of the Founders and, dare I say, contrary to a system of government that is (as Lincoln put it) “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The proponents of this new health care system have routinely dodged the question over the past few months, especially during the town hall meetings during the last recess.

Now we’ve set it up, let us dive in.

“It will not be in the power of the President and Senate to make any treaties by which they and their families and estates will not be equally bound and affected with the rest of the community; and, having no private interests distinct from that of the nation, they will be under no temptations to neglect the latter.”

It seems pretty straight-forward; simple enough that a caveman could understand. The President and the Senate will not pass anything they will not voluntarily enter into themselves. Jay continues by discussing the mentality of such people, both the legislators and the people suspecting them:

“As to corruption, the case is not supposable. He must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such impressions, who can think it probable that a President and two-thirds of the Senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained.” (italics mine)

They never imagined that the President and two-thirds of the Senate would ever do such a thing. But they have, and the current health care bill is just another example. Social security is probably the longest-running exemption though. It was enacted in 1935, but it wasn’t until 1983 that they were forced to enter into it. The vote is here, so check and see if your Representative or Senator (assuming they’re still in office) voted for, against, or even bothered to vote at all.

There are several true tests as to the merits of a piece of legislation. Having the people writing it to voluntarily bind themselves to what they are enacting should be among the top. This author would go as far as to support a bill that would force them to write out in the text of the legislation that members of Congress shall not be exempt from any provisions of any piece of legislation coming out of D.C.

Building on Thinker’s post on the subject I’d like us to dive into “State’s Rights.”

The term itself has a negative connotation to it, mainly because it was the argument used by the Southern states in defense of slavery and as a rallying call for secession. Therefore, everyone that brings it up is a racist. It’s a bunk claim, that people who understand and believe in the concept of federalism are automatically racist, and one that has been a knee-jerk reaction to this issue for far too long.

Back during the founding there was no country to speak of. The colonies had long saw themselves as separate entities from one another and people within them referred to their respective state as their country. Distrustful of the Motherland, they were loathe to create their own version of the same thing, so they devised the Articles of Confederation. A unified front was needed to fight Britain and, assuming they would win the revolution, from the other European empires that already had holdings in the Americas.

But it didn’t work. The country was in debt with no power to pay it off. So the Founders wrote the Constitution, giving the federal government a bit more power. This set off a huge debate and two main factions arose: The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

The former were for the new federal government as the Constitution laid it out, the latter were against it. Both were aware of the dangers associated with giving a central authority power, so they came together and laid out very specific duties that the federal government was to execute and laid out the powers it was to have over the states in Section 8. These powers were always meant to be limited and everything else was left to the States to handle.

The point here is that throughout the founding the States were acknowledged to be in charge of day-to-day business that lay outside the federal enumerated powers.There were no racist feelings behind it. It was largely about the law. Before the Civil war, there was no federal law banning the practice of slavery, so states were free to legislate on the subject as they saw fit. The result? A lot of states banned it. This is what the concept of federalism is all about. If one state had a better idea of how to do business, you could vote with your feet and go live there. Both black and white saw this and took advantage. It may have taken another generation, but through federalism we could have seen a peaceful and less destructive resolution because slavery could simply not compete in the growing global economy where the main buyers of the south’s goods were countries that abhorred the practice.

So what do we have today? Well, we don’t have the government the Founders built for us. We’ve been slowly devolving from a country of checks and balances (a republican form of government) to one of mob rule (pure democracy), and to get out of it I would propose three legal issues that fall under the header of “State’s Rights” that need to be dusted off and brought up to the spotlight once again.

1. Repeal the 17th Amendment: This amendment changed the way Senators were voted on, moving it from state legislatures to the popular vote. By doing so it removed an important check on the federal government by removing a direct State check on the federal government and turned the upper house into little more than an elite version of the House.

2. Nullification: Despite the precedent being that the federal government has the final say, and given the fact that states have no true representation at the federal level, some state legislature should reach up, find a pair, and say in one voice that a law, a regulation, a program the federal government is instituting is unconstitutional.

3. Secession: I’m not an advocate of secession, but it is important to note that there was no way the states would have signed on to the Union without the option of being able to bow out when it proved detrimental to their survival. A solid legal argument should be made along the lines of the recent 10th Amendment movements seen in a number of states this year. Texas was the most visible this year, with the governor even signing on.

It’s important we reaffirm the original charter of the United “States” if we are to see the same opportunities that previous generations had and used to make our country that shining light on the hill.

What is the Government’s role?

What is it?  What does it mean to us in the United States?  For starters, let’s look to the Constitution, you know, that document that people talk about without really knowing what’s truly in it (ie. seperation of church and state).

We open up the Constitution with the Preamble, which starts with “We the People”.  We the PEOPLE, not we the Government, not we the minority, not we the illegals, not we the lower-class, not we the rich…..we the PEOPLE.  United, as one, all People legally residing in the United States of America.  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to our selves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  I’m noting that there is nothing about the Government in there, it’s the People – We the People.

Those who framed the Constitution were familiar with the basic forms of government.  While still under Great Britain, the collonies experienced a unitarity form of government.  While they enjoyed much autonomy, they were not allowed to forget that they were, in fact, colonies.  The problem of a unitary form of government became clear to the framers when Great Britain exerted greater control over the colonies after the French/Indian War; the Parliament was too far away to truly understand the problems and needs of the colonies.

After the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation were drafted.  Colonies were not much happier, but they did enjoy complete autonomy and independence.  As colonies, they had a common enemy in Great Britain, therby suppressing their differences.  Once under the Articles of Confederation, differences began to surface with the institution of slavery already beginning to divide the North and South.  There were also problems with Trade and Currency.  Looking at it, thoughtful observers realized that the nation was in danger of becoming thirteen different nations.  It was the framers who met in Philadelphia in 1787 (May to be exact), and they faced a dilemma.  While some of the states had been in existence for more than one hundred years, others were new to the union.  The framers had a challenge in getting 13 different states to agree on one form of government, and they knew that it was inconceivable to expect the states to surrender their own governmental powers to an omnipotent central government.  They also know that a national government would have to be strengthened in order for the United States to survive.

This is where you get Federalism.  Under a federal form of government, the states would surrender some of their governmental powers to the national government, leaving the states the remaining powers up to the states.  Federalism is defined as the division of the governmental powers between one central government and the individual states.

Thus it was from American federalism that the framers set forth to putting together the Constitution.  Their primary concern was to allow the states to still maintain many rights, while allowing a central government to control things like currency, national defense, and trade.  Powers denied to the states are found in Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution; “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grand letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payments of debts; pass any bill of attainer, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of congress, lay an imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely neccessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the congress.

No state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”

Okay, so, we can’t import or export, set up trade, make our own currency, etc. on a state level, this is the power of the federal government.

Then we have all of the amendments to the Constitution, these were intended to limit the federal government from doing certain things; like imposing on states rights.

Back to the question of the Government’s role.  Well, it’s the government’s role to protect our rights, as individuals.  They are not there to take care of everyone that thinks that they deserve something because someone else has it.  The problem is that too many people don’t want to work to actually protect their rights, they expect the government to take care of them.