What do you think is the proper role of the Federal Government?

[Siddhartha]

Of course! If you want them to do something else you'd better be prepared to pay them for the work. I know I don't work for free.

Okay, the point of the thread is to get a discussion about what people, meaning you, want the Federal government to do. Are you saying you want the Federal government only to take care of the powerful?

 

[IronWing]

The government should fire it's janitors and cooks?

The Feds outsourced the janitors and cooks decades ago. Now we taxpayers pay Lockheed to hire a sub to hire a sub to hire a janitor.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Feds outsourced the janitors and cooks decades ago. Now we taxpayers pay Lockheed to hire a sub to hire a sub to hire a janitor.

Pretty much, but his post made no sense so mine was about his incoherence.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yep, but people will interpret that as Constitutional grounds for the government doing virtually anything. The facts are that no court has ever used the preamble as grounds for an action. What it does is provide context for the government to use it's authority as defined within the body of the Constitution itself.

My belief is that in an ideal world (yeah I know) government should be a facilitator, a servant of the people who's purpose is to minimally insert itself when there is clear need and as defined by the constraints placed upon it by the people. Otherwise, it should butt out. It should not be the source of morality, a repository of power for it's own sake, a shill, or whatever it really is, which is not as I first defined.

The courts, not the people determine what is constitutional. The people are not free at all to interpret the preamble as anything. The preamble gives the justification for why the government exists, the Constitution, itself, says how it will exist. As you can see in the words 'provide promote and secure', the government isn't passive, but active.

All over the Middle East, there appears to be a similar intention for democratic government and folk from all over the world want to be here. We live under a rule of law and the law has force.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The courts, not the people determine what is constitutional. The people are not free at all to interpret the preamble as anything. The preamble gives the justification for why the government exists, the Constitution, itself, says how it will exist. As you can see in the words 'provide promote and secure', the government isn't passive, but active.

All over the Middle East, there appears to be a similar intention for democratic government and folk from all over the world want to be here. We live under a rule of law and the law has force.

The preamble gives a broad justification but it doesn't tell you much about the scope of government. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly states what the scope of government is.

 

[wuliheron]

Okay, the point of the thread is to get a discussion about what people, meaning you, want the Federal government to do. Are you saying you want the Federal government only to take care of the powerful?

Your original question wasn't what I want, but what is the proper role of the federal government. Personally, I think the fed represents the wealthy, corporations, and special interest groups way too much. However, those are the people Americans keep electing. At best the interests of the people come a distant second.

This might sound odd, but I would compare the relationship to that of a drug addict and their dealer. The addict keeps taking drugs to feel good and the more they take the more they need to take to get the same feeling. It ruins their lives and health, but they're obsessive compulsive and its almost impossible to convince them to change.

The fed's role has become that of the drug dealer supplying the addict with what they think they want and need even as it kills them. No doubt if the American people go cold turkey they will elect other people to supply them with healthy alternatives or replace the fed altogether. In the meantime, it is the wealthy, corporations, and special interest groups that benefit the most from this dysfunctional relationship and that the fed is demonstrably there to serve.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The courts, not the people determine what is constitutional. The people are not free at all to interpret the preamble as anything.

That's true and why I said that no court has used anything in the Preamble as justification to make a ruling. It's a guiding principle, not the actual authority. I bring it up because many insist on using the "general welfare clause". That's not in the body of the Constitution like interstate commerce.

As you can see in the words 'provide promote and secure', the government isn't passive, but active.

Active, but with limits. All governments have to be active to be effectual, however we created a system which is inherently designed to limit what the government can do.

We live under a rule of law and the law has force.

Certainly it has force. If that's what the Constitution was designed to authorize it did so in such a way to limit what can be done. Consider the separation of powers. What an inefficient system to project force. It inconveniences those who would use it for a particular agenda. From the perspective of order it is nonsense. Why does it exist? Because the exercise of force was intended to be quite limited. Note that the Bill of Rights does not grant powers to the government, but provides protection of the people from it.

In order to form a more perfect union, we established the Constitution. Government is necessary to provide order, to resolve grievances and the like. We like the word "Democracy". Well that itself is useless. What about a Democracy which offers no choice? What if the leaders we have to choose from wish to rule? Democracy is not freedom, but a potential means to preserve it. What is freedom? The exercise of self determination. Not chaotic unlimited freedom of action, but that which is recognized by society at large. Indeed, it's the ability to make unpopular decisions as long as no one is harmed. You are free to ignore what I say, but you haven't (or should not) have the ability to use the government to suppress my opinions because you don't like them.

Government has the ability to use force, but that is derived by the consent of the governed. When it exceeds that authority for any reason then it is become our ruler. One may very well approve of it using it's power for a desired outcome, but the tide eventually changes and those who were repressed will be in charge. Then we witness not only agenda but a potential for retribution. I resist that.

 

[Patranus]

Proper role of the federal government?

What the Constitution says not what someone wants the constitution to say.

(if it was meant to be a living document why is there an amendment process to begin with?)

(if the federal government was suppose to regulate commerce why is commerce prefixed with 'inter'?)

 

[ericlp]

Pretty much, but his post made no sense so mine was about his incoherence.

Your post made as much sense as a camels ass...

Keep up the good work.

 

[lefenzy]

He said it most ideally, where it's a nothing more than a voluntary Union of States. States that are required to uphold the Bill of Rights, but have no other requirements placed on them.

I want 50 experiements in government, where the people are free to move to a more like-minded state and thus get the representation that best suits them. Then we can have an ecomonic competition among states where the people pick winners and looser, and the looser can freely decide to emulate the policy of the winning states.

We'll have such variety that we won't get stuck in century long arguments of policy. If there's an idea then there's a state where someone has tried it and learned the results. Everyone else knows the results and this competition, this plurality, results in a better life for everyone because an entire nation of 310 million people won't be held hostage to a stagnant and ineffective consolidated seat of power in Washington DC.

I'm sorry Jaskalas and Anarchist420 (mainly Anarchist420), that vision isn't ideal at all. See federalist 6, 7, and 8.

Federalist 6:

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages
...
what reason can we have to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality between the members of the present confederacy, in a state of separation?

Federalist 7 shows the likelihood of future conflict between states by describing points of conflict.

Federalist 8 shows the inconveniences of such conflict.

In short, such a vision of 50 separate, sovereign states would quickly devolve into war between the states. The national government must have enough power such that the states are unified under one central government.

Yet, in order for government to operate based on the consent of the governed and not to become tyrannical, government must be limited. How? The system of federalism developed in the constitution have proven to be a solution. To prevent the federal government from becoming tyrannical, the constitution specifically enumerates specific powers reserved for the federal government. The rest go to the states. The duty of the citizen is to see to it that this balance of power between federal and state government be preserved, though throughout America's history, we've forever been centralizing. This is why the thinking behind the New Deal and the Great Society were wrong. The federal government has no power to step into those fields. Altogether today, we do not have enough confidence in states being able to solve their own problems, and states today are highly dependent on money from the feds, whose distribution is decided by the centralized power of Washington DC.

Never before the American experiment have we seen limited government extend over so vast a territory as the United States. We ought to pay attention to the political thinking that went into writing the constitution because that theory is the foundation for the governance of this nation.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's true and why I said that no court has used anything in the Preamble as justification to make a ruling. It's a guiding principle, not the actual authority. I bring it up because many insist on using the "general welfare clause". That's not in the body of the Constitution like interstate commerce. Active, but with limits. All governments have to be active to be effectual, however we created a system which is inherently designed to limit what the government can do. Certainly it has force. If that's what the Constitution was designed to authorize it did so in such a way to limit what can be done. Consider the separation of powers. What an inefficient system to project force. It inconveniences those who would use it for a particular agenda. From the perspective of order it is nonsense. Why does it exist? Because the exercise of force was intended to be quite limited. Note that the Bill of Rights does not grant powers to the government, but provides protection of the people from it.

In order to form a more perfect union, we established the Constitution. Government is necessary to provide order, to resolve grievances and the like. We like the word "Democracy". Well that itself is useless. What about a Democracy which offers no choice? What if the leaders we have to choose from wish to rule? Democracy is not freedom, but a potential means to preserve it. What is freedom? The exercise of self determination. Not chaotic unlimited freedom of action, but that which is recognized by society at large. Indeed, it's the ability to make unpopular decisions as long as no one is harmed. You are free to ignore what I say, but you haven't (or should not) have the ability to use the government to suppress my opinions because you don't like them.

Government has the ability to use force, but that is derived by the consent of the governed. When it exceeds that authority for any reason then it is become our ruler. One may very well approve of it using it's power for a desired outcome, but the tide eventually changes and those who were repressed will be in charge. Then we witness not only agenda but a potential for retribution. I resist that.

The concent of the governed can't be used to take away rights unless the Constitution is changed. Folk are always free to enslave themselves. The courts are there to protect agains people tyrany and popular madness. But I understand your points.

 

[Infohawk]

I think we need some amendments to the Constitution to settle some of the issues that people disagree on. But basically the federal government should be managing defense (which includes science funding), immigration, and the economy / trade. Considering that the economy encompasses so much of modern human activity, it's not necessarily wrong that the federal government plays a big role in our lives. (I'd probably get them out of the health and housing realms though.)