Why did the Founding Fathers (tm) use the phrase "several states" in the Constitution? Why "several"?

The term is used all over the document. It appears in the sections on formation and powers of the Congress, powers of the President, and the powers and responsibilities of the states themselves. It also appears in the 5th (amending the Constitution), 6th (supremacy of the Constitution), 14th (Citizenship rights), 16th (income tax), 18th (prohibition), 20th (Presidential, Congressional terms), 21st (prohibition repealed), and 22nd (Presidential term limit) amendments.

What does "several states" mean? It isn't hard to find out. The first definition of "several" at Miriam-Webster is this:

separate or distinct from one another : individually owned or controlled

Separate. Distinct. A union of individual entities.

The balance between Federal and State powers has shifted grotesquely since the Constitution was written. It is both sad and dangerous that the states have traded their riding crops for a federal yoke.

Posted by: Jim at 11:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

Update: Trey has a related post about the general welfare clause in the preamble.

This started out as a comment at Random Pensees but got too big. As a rule of thumb, if your comment goes past 3 paragraphs you should consider making a post out of it.

RP gives a brief recap of how we ended up with our Constitution, pointing out that our country was not set up with a strong central government. Even when the Constitution was adopted the federal government was severely limited in scope and power. The Constitution specifically grants the states all rights not specifically designated to the federal government or not specifically prohibited to them.

RP uses the example of unfunded mandates to point out the failure of this protection of states' rights. I couldn't agree more. Actually, I could and do agree more. Y'all probably expected that, knowing me for the radical reactionary that I am.

The Federal government has been systematically reducing the rights of the several states since the adoption of the Constitution. Well, maybe not right after the adoption but definitely within a generation. There was one very notable pushback (the Civil War) but since then the Fed's stripping of State powers has been a legislative steamroller.

Like RP, I have a serious problem with unfunded mandates. I'll go further than that though. I have a serious problem with all mandates. The founding fathers were familiar with the idea - it's essentially the same as taxation without representation. We make the rules, you follow them and shut up about it.

The vast majority of federal laws could not pass a true constitutional litmus test. Oh, I know that they all have a line or two saying that they are crafted to address a concern of interstate commerce but that's just political hogwash for the most part. Federal laws are not crafted with the intent to regulate interstate commerce, they are crafted for agendas and then adjusted to give lip service to the interstate commerce requirement.

The most visible proof of the loss of state power is the election just past. Think about the television coverage you endured. How much of that was devoted to your state legislature, local mayor or even your governor? Not a drop in the bucket compared to the attention given to federal congressional and senate races. There is no attention given to state races because the balance of power is so far to the federal side that even the most powerful state position is just an also-ran.

Posted by: Jim at 05:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

UPDATE: The wacky date on this post is intentional. It's going to stay at the top of the first page for a while.

It's starting right now. Current membership: Me, Pylorns, Peekah

I touched on it last week and the idea just won't leave me alone. You see, I want a political identity. I want to be a part of a group of like-minded folk. I know they're out there but they're in the same boat as I am - unable to fully identify with either of the majors or stubbornly claiming independence.

Here are the issues that need to be addressed, the forces that are making this party not only welcome but needed: more...

Posted by: Jim at 05:45 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 937 words, total size 6 kb.

1 You have some issues that will alienate people. Plank #2 for example: Legislatures should be more concerned about removing bad laws than creating new ones. This needs more explanation. Often the creation of new laws is very important. If a legislature misses the boat on something important, your party will be blamed. Also in plank #5, you need to seriously remove the word 'fuck'. Use of that word in any kind of official capacity is inappropriate. If you want inclusiveness, using that word works against you.

Posted by: Garret at November 18, 2004 07:09 AM (IOwam)

2 I have some small issues with number 4, but only because we've privatized some things here in FL and I just shake my head sometimes. The private corporations appear to try to hide their problems more than the government did. Other than that... I am an independent. If a 3rd party were to form, I'd be all for it. The problem would be getting people like me to register for it over Rep or Dem. You can't vote in FL in the primaries unless you're registered to a party, which is why even though I'm an independent, I picked a party. (I picked the party that appeared to have the fewest number of local dirtbags, in the case of my county, it appeared to be the Republicans.) I've voted for a 3rd party candidate before. I get a lot of comments on my blog and I see them on others, that there are grunches of people who have come to abhor both parties... the whole left is lefter, right is righter thing...

Posted by: Boudicca at November 18, 2004 07:16 AM (XH1zZ)

3 Garret - Good points. There's no place for flippancy here if I want people to take this seriously. I've removed the profanity. I've also expanded #2 and clarified it a bit. I agree that some new legislation is valuable and even necessary. Boudicca - Registration isn't going to be a big issue in the beginning. The votes and support are independent of it and we won't be in the position of needing primary run-offs for a while yet. I've modified #4 for clarity and to get rid of the petulant tone.

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2004 09:08 AM (tyQ8y)

4 One more note: The language 'messed with' might be better written as 'altered' or 'changed'. Your current terminology is still somewhat colloquial.

Posted by: Garret at November 18, 2004 10:15 AM (IOwam)

5 Got it.

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2004 10:34 AM (tyQ8y)

6 I'm in.

Posted by: pylorns at November 18, 2004 09:10 PM (jy/AJ)

7 One of the principles of USURP is that once enough people again prove that they can properly bear all the responsibility related to their own lives, as well as the lives of the family and those in their local community, much of which they currently eschew, choosing instead to shift the responsibility for such upon the government, then the need for governance will disappear.

Posted by: Tig at November 19, 2004 12:13 PM (G5PGV)

8 Additionally, another tenet of my own personal belief is that our government should never give anything to anyone for absolutely nothing. While I believe it may be necessary and proper for the government to supply the necessities of life to certain segments of its society, I do not believe it is fair or beneficial of those segments of society to get such necessities supplied gratis. I propose a modified socialit-style system, where the government operates certain facilities, utilities, hospitals, and other necessary services on a non-profit basis, where the underprivileged segments of the society solely have to pay their share of the actual cost of such benefit. Where a family falls to a point at which they are completely unable to sustain itself at even non-profit levels, then I propose that we establish self-supporting camps at which these families can voluntarily enlist to become members, gaining necessary family support, training in life and labor market skills, and allowed to save a small weekly stipend to build a nest egg. Once it is thought that they have accumulated what is needed to return to life in the real world, they are free to leave.

Posted by: Tig at November 19, 2004 12:32 PM (G5PGV)

9 Ok, this is a relatively minor quibble, but---maybe it's just me, but "nationalist" party reminds me too much of National Socia1ist Party. How about reviving an oldie-but-goodie? The Federalist Party....?

Posted by: Susie at November 20, 2004 12:32 PM (VR4G3)

10 I like your ideas. I am a bit concerned with the privatization part; I'd like to know more about what you would privatize and how to ensure that those who do need help get the help they need.

Posted by: Rachel Ann at November 20, 2004 03:56 PM (iT4Tl)

11 I'm not married to Nationalist but I couldn't go along with Federalist. Too many connotations of a big centralized government. If we want thing to be more efficient that's definitely not the way to go.

Posted by: Jim at November 22, 2004 09:55 AM (tyQ8y)

12 Rachel Ann - Privatization should immediately happen in service segments that the government cannot provide adequate service, provides grossly overcost services or competes with private businesses in order to provide service. An excellent example I recently ran into is unemployment benefits. I have been paying mandatory unemployment "insurance" fees for 20 years. In that time the amount I've put into the system even with the most meager accumulated gains would amount to well over $28,000. When I lost my job I was entitled to a pittance of $300 a week. This amount of money was just shy of absolutely useless. Like many Americans I have a car payment and a house payment. Utilities, food, dependents, etc. Because benefits do not start when you become unemployed I actually collected benefits for only three weeks out of the 2+ months that I was without a job. I absolutely guarantee that this money could have been handled better by any entity other than the government. Why is it mandatory? If I don't want to buy life insurance nobody questions my right not to do so but I am forced to pay every week for this utterly broken system. Why not let me decide? Even if I had been able to put that money in a regular savings account with the restriction that it could only be dispensed upon the condition of unemployment we would be in worlds better financial shape than we are now. In fact, we'd be in healthy financial shape instead of the straights we're in at the moment. A quicker example - in Georgia all liquor is sold only by the state. Why? Beer and wine are available in the supermarkets. Why do I have to buy whiskey at a state run package store? There is no reason for the government to be interfering with this private industry sector.

Posted by: Jim at November 22, 2004 10:32 AM (tyQ8y)

13 Re: point 6. What about Pork rinds?

Posted by: Kin at November 23, 2004 10:39 AM (ZQldT)

14 Pork rinds would be tolerated as a necessary evil. I am living in Georgia after all.

Posted by: Jim at November 23, 2004 01:57 PM (tyQ8y)

15 My g/f posted on her site about universal healthcare. While I am 60/40 on it, I think it would work as long as the government does not actually handle the cost of it. Here are my two cents on it: 1. Regulate Medicaid and Medicare better - allow for updates in technology and stop paper pushing. 2. Stop the pharmacutical company hold. Drugs don't cost that much to manufacture. 3. Form laws about frivolous law suits that bring down the cost of mal-practice insurance. 4. Stricter standards for doctors that goes with those laws. 5. The cost of health insurance is through the roof. By lowering the drug costs and the malpractice, we may be able to bring down the cost of insurance. The other thing is, we are pushing to privitize things away from the government - because everytime the government takes over certain aspects of business the costs are always underestimated and then grossly over-costed. Do we want to deal with Universal Health Care in the hands of the government? How about mandatory health care for every person that has a job. Thats a start. Make the employers responsible, not the government - give tax breaks to the employers for helping out with health care - and force contract companies to also have health care - full or part time. This will stop them from outsourceing to contractors that they dont have to pay for benifits. The next step is to keep the jobs in the US, so they don't try to get people in india to do the job for less. So we have to pass regulations that make it harder to have employees in another country do what Americans should be doing.

Posted by: pylorns at November 23, 2004 02:45 PM (FTYER)

16 Jeez, am I eff'g invisible? Or has ever'one finally concluded that I am jes' a madman and it is better to jes' ignore me? USURP. 1) Takin' care of your responsibilities yourself so you don't need a government to do it for you. 2) Government supplied basic services on a low-cost non-profit basis, nothing is free. 3) Reeducation camps to assist the desperately destitute in gainin' the necessary skills to become productive responsible citizens, not long-term wards of the state.

Posted by: Tig at November 24, 2004 10:40 AM (G5PGV)

17 You're not invisible, Tig, but I'm pretty sure you've confirmed as a madman. ;-) #1 I fully agree with. #2 would depend on the services. Ideally I'd rather see government out of the service industries. #3 is a particular favorite of Dopple-G's. It'll be one of the first things he implements if he ever become dictator for life. Personally I look at that as a service, one that could probably be done better and cheaper by a private entity.

Posted by: Jim at November 24, 2004 11:08 AM (tyQ8y)

18 Not to be a downer, but what you have described here is basically small "l" libertarianism. Although the capital "l" Libertarians have usurped the basic concepts and added to them their own wacky agenda, basically, what you've got is it. Although I applaud it, you will not make much of a national splash because your own altruism would alienate most Americans at the most basic point, personal greed. Your #1 point is the most dangerous and open to interpretation as to be almost worthless. Let's see, Democrats say that the government is here to protect the rights to "the pursuit of happiness," thus unlimited welfare should be available (Johnson's Great Society). Republicans believe that government exists to protect that same right by the DOMA. Again, I applaud your sentiments, but I feel within the capitalistic framework of American economy, no one will be willing to play. We have our NIMBYism and our greed which will prevent us from allowing the monolith which is the American Bureaucracy from diminishing, regardless of who is at it's titular head.

Posted by: Someonewhoreads at November 24, 2004 09:39 PM (Msg+m)

19 Count me in... this has been a long time in coming and the time is now. Can this be something viable? All there is, is the chance... why not take it?

Posted by: Peakah at November 25, 2004 01:46 AM (RuiVw)

20 They're comin' to take me away, ha ha!

Posted by: Tig at November 25, 2004 12:36 PM (G5PGV)

21 I'm having trouble getting my brain around "the legislation of morality" I realize this most obviously applies to the devide created by the gay marriage issue and abortion, but what other fairly important issues can be labled a moral issue in order for it just to not be dealt with? Maybe I'm too far right to participate, but I am still reading...

Posted by: FastFreddy at November 28, 2004 07:20 AM (dZoIR)

22 FastFreddy, the Libertarian classics like marijuana, prostitution and gambling would be excellent examples. We have two types of illegal things in the USA - things that are illegal because they must be illegal from a humane perspective (murder, theft) and things that are illegal only because we have made them so. This latter class is chock full of morality laws.

Posted by: Jim at November 28, 2004 07:32 AM (GCA5m)

23 More power to you, but I suspect you would be smarter to, instead of forming a third party, form an action committee that sponsors groups within the Democratic and Republican parties. The American system can't support three parties. I know, I know, lots of people say I'm wrong--they've been saying it for 200 years. The most effective political groups by far are those with connections deep in both parties. The Libertariansn look like they're starting to get it. There's a Republican Liberty Coalition and a Democratic Liberty Coalition. By the way, spontaneously, in both the House and Senate, there is something called the "centrist caucus," which have a number of members in both parties. I mostly like your agenda. FWIW.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at November 30, 2004 06:31 AM (LOj+R)

Hide Comments | Add Comment