What is the purpose of the federal government?
Published Sun, Oct 21 2007 11:13 PM
Technorati Tags: Federalism, States Rights, Constitution, Founders
Think about that question for a bit before you read further. Seriously. I'll give you my answer near the bottom of the post.
I know what I think its purpose is, and I'm pretty sure that a large number of people will come up with a different answer than mine.
What answer do you think today's politicians would give to that question? Do you think it would differ from the answer that the founders would give?
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;
With these words, our founders declared their independence from Great Britain. Note that…
- They appealed to the "Supreme Judge of the world" for the rightness of their intentions. Who might that Supreme Judge be? It certainly couldn't be any individual man, nor even mankind collectively. Earlier references in the document refer to Nature's God and mankind's Creator.
- They spoke in the name and with the authority of the people. They were elected representatives of the people and spoke for them all.
- They declared that each of the colonies were Free and Independent States. That meant, quite literally that each colony was from that moment an independent and sovereign nation. They emphasized this further with the following words…
and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
This was "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America". This was not the country that we know today as the United States of America. This was thirteen separate countries bound together with bonds of friendship and honor.
Those thirteen independent nations were…
- New Hampshire
- Massachusetts-bay
- Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
- Connecticut
- New York
- New Jersey
- Pennsylvania
- Delaware
- Maryland
- Virginia
- North Carolina
- South Carolina
- Georgia
Two years and five days after fifty six men pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred Honor, relying upon the protection of divine Providence those nations had joined together and drafted the Articles of Confederation. Almost three years later, Maryland was the final State to accede to the Articles of Confederation. They were ratified on March the 1st, 1781.
Unfortunately the Articles of Confederation didn't really work out too well. Six and a half years after they were ratified a new Constitution for the United States was completed and signed.
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 ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So the people of the United States established the constitution. The first stated reason for this was to form a more perfect union. More perfect than what? More perfect than the weak union formed by the Confederation. There are other reasons listed in the preamble to the Constitution as well, and I believe that these reasons explain quite well the purpose the founders had in establishing the form of government we have today.
I told you I would give my answer to what I believe the purpose of the federal government is. I also told you that it would probably be at odds with what a lot of people seem to think today. Anyway, here goes the reasoning behind my answer.
I believe that the purpose of the federal government is to bind the States into a single, united nation. I believe that the federal government exists to ensure a uniform justice throughout that nation. One of the paramount responsibilities of the federal government is to defend the States from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
To accomplish these ends, the free and sovereign States of the Confederacy were required to relinquish their sovereignty to the federal government. Give that some serious thought for a moment.
Much has been made lately of a hypothetical "North American Union", patterned in some manner after the European Union. The implication is that the United States, Canada and Mexico will each give up their sovereignty to the new union. People have quoted former Mexican President Vicente Fox as having said that he and President Bush have made an arrangement to accomplish this union.
Can you imagine the people of the United States accepting that? Do you really believe that U.S. Citizens want their rights and liberties subordinated to the will of Canadian ministers or the Mexican president? What would become of the right to keep and bear arms, which is already under attack in this country?
Now imagine the people of Georgia in 1787 giving up their State's sovereignty to a union with Rhode Island. There is a fairly large distance between the two States. What do politicians in Rhode Island know about the needs of the people in Georgia anyway?
Just six short years earlier the nation had come out of the Revolution having thrown off the shackles of a tyrannical government across the ocean. Would they now give up that hard won sovereignty to politicians from across the continent? Even if some of those politicians were from their nearest neighbors?
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque 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 the Congress, lay any Imposts 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 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 Controul 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.
That's a lot of power to give up. Surely if the States would give up that power they would want some assurances. Some of those assurances came in the original document.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
The form of the Constitution provided other assurances to the States. The Constitution enumerates the powers of each branch of the federal government explicitly. It also enumerates many prohibitions that the federal government may not violate.
Most importantly, at the same time the Constitution was drafted, several amendments to the Constitution were proposed. Without several of these amendments it is unlikely that the Constitution would ever have been ratified. Among those amendments is the tenth amendment which 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.
The powers and limitations of the federal government are very clearly laid out. Among the powers that the Constitution gives to the federal government are the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (emphasis added).
So among the first of the enumerated powers of the federal government is providing for the common defense. This is after all among the paramount purposes of the federal government. When the States gave up their sovereignty, the gave up the right to defend themselves unless they were actually invaded. That defense became the responsibility and obligation of the federal government.
I've been told by some that the Constitution does not allow for the creation of a standing army. I suppose that's one way you could interpret this enumerated power of Congress…
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Of course another way to interpret that same enumerated power is to say that Congress is explicitly authorized to raise a standing army… They just have to appropriate funds for it every two years. Funny thing that. That seems to be exactly what they've done for over a hundred years.
Further, the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to provide and maintain a Navy, and guess what! There's no restriction on the length of time appropriations for the Navy can be made for.
Not one of the powers given to the federal government includes providing for the needs of the people, and none of the restrictions laid upon the states prohibits them from doing so. Therefore, many of our modern social programs are not rightly the province of the federal government. The power to enact social programs, whether they are manifested as welfare programs, social security, providing for health care or education is reserved explicitly to the states by the tenth amendment to the Constitution.
I am fairly certain that the founders planned for things to work that way and that our current system of cradle to grave federal entitlement programs was never envisioned by them. It seems to me that the "general Welfare of the United States", by the very usage of the term when the Constitution and its amendments are so very explicit when referring to the several States or to the People should not be interpreted as authorizing such programs.
But then I am neither a lawyer, nor a scholar of the law, and my opinion carries little weight with the powers that be in our government. For that, I am sure some of my readers are quite grateful.
I believe that the purpose of the federal government is to…
- raise armies for the defense of the United States
- raise a navy for the defense of the United States
- treat with foreign powers
- ensure domestic tranquility and suppress insurrection
- ensure and regulate interstate commerce
- provide for the general welfare of the United States
- manage and provide for uniform immigration and naturalization laws.
I believe that the purpose of the federal government is not to…
- provide for the education of the people of the several states
- provide for retirement benefits for the people of the several states
- provide for the medical care of the people of the several states
- extract tax moneys from the citizens of one state for disbursement and projects within another state
- regulate in any way purely intrastate commerce
- prevent the states from putting down an invasion by foreigners that enter the country illegally.
Perhaps you came to a different conclusion than I did. Several people I've had recent online conversations with certainly would. I'm pretty sure that Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama would. I'm also almost certain that our current President would. It's a fair bet that even the majority of our Republican candidates for President would.
If you came to different conclusions, why don't you tell me and the rest of my readers about it in the comment thread. Just please, keep it civil, after all, you know what a hateful man I am.
This linkfest is for the 22nd of October, 2007.
If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback.
Just remember the trackback policy.
For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1028
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2007/10/21/1028.aspx
The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns trackbacked with "Crazy Sam - The Haunting"
From Right Wing News: Will Hillarycare Mean Delivering Your Own Baby?If you want massive shortages of doctors, antiquated equipment, outrageous wait times to get operations, and dozens of other similar disasters, just let Hillary and Company have their way...
universityupdate.com trackbacked with "What is the purpose of the federal government?"
Right Truth trackbacked with "Blog Rush and their Quality Review criteria"
In case any fellow bloggers have thought about signing up for BLOG RUSH, a blog syndication site, don't bother. I signed up, checked it out, and the majority of their syndication consists of 'news' like what Paris Hilton or some
Right Voices trackbacked with "Halloween Message"
Click here for your Halloween message
Trackposted to Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson’s Website, third world county, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, ...
The Florida Masochist trackbacked with "The Knucklehead of the Day award"
Today's winner is Belle Glade Chevrolet-Cadillac-Buick-Pontiac-Oldsmobile Inc.
third world county trackbacked with "Speak the Truth, Be Sent to Coventry"
Name-calling absent any facts to support the labeling is no argument. That Watson’s attackers have no argument is obvious in the fact that they make no attempt to make any argument whatsoever.
...
Shadowscope trackbacked with "Manic Monday #1"
OK, Manic Monday is another one of those weekly memes that I have been doing lately. The thing I really like about them is that they give me something to write about other than work or paid reviews or politics....
123beta trackbacked with "Sept. 11 Attacks Not So Bad"
I just about fell out of my chair when I read this: Nobel laureate Doris Lessing said the Sept. 11 attacks in the ...
Conservative Cat trackbacked with "10/22/07: Picture Plagues"
No matter who you are or what people have promised you, even in writing, do not let someone take a picture of you unless you're willing to see it reproduced all over the Internet....
Woman Honor Thyself trackbacked with "You say “HatE SpeecH”, I say “TrutH”"
Then along come the Libs buddies. IzlamoNazis, who are a breed unto themselves.
...
Diary of the Mad Pigeon trackbacked with "Synthetic Democracy: Associations and Social Capital in Virtual Worlds"
Not only do I want to keep on top of this paper, but I also want to ask new questions on the same research, such as exploring the international relations impact of virtual worlds.
The Amboy Times trackbacked with "Southern California Fires"
I should be blogging the GOP debates, but the recent events in my old neighborhood have me watching the the wildfires there very closely. I still have many friends and family in the San Diego area, and many of them
Adam's Blog trackbacked with "Zero Tolerance Insanity"
The GOP invests in the corrupt Ted Stevens…Schools go nuts with Zero Tolerance as kids are being suspsended for relatively innocuous drawings and for playing cops and robbers…Merit pay for teachers in New York City…Late term babies ki...
Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with "Why I hate Public Schools"
Another John Stossel pice, this time on why our public schools suck. Again, a great summary of the problems.
Note, it's long but see it thru, its worth it.
And for people like Ken Schram, who think money is the cure, guess again.
&n...
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Angel responded with:
 | I agree fully with your well thought out definition Perri!...what happened to our Constitution?:) |
ablur responded with:
 | I have read and Re-read the constitution and still I am left wondering how we have strayed so far in the last 50 years. Those who are sworn to uphold the constitution have raped and pillaged it.
The once great country of the United States of America has ceased to be. Until true constitution first leaders come to office, I fear we will wander much farther from the path. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | ablur,
We started straying a lot longer than 50 years ago. When the courts took upon themselves power that had not been granted to them in the constitution the seeds of oligarchy and tyranny were sewn.
The laziness and corruptibility of legislators at both the state and federal level further accelerated the slide. The twelfth, fourteenth, and seventeenth amendments resulted in a fundamental shift in the nature of our republic that has made it even easier for a continual slide toward socialism as our Senators and the Executive seek to amass power through popularity.
There is unfortunately no going back. At least there is none without constant vigilance and pressure to return to the government our Constitution explicitly promises us. That will be difficult to achieve with so many of use dependent upon and in fact enslaved to the government. |
ablur responded with:
| What a sad state we find ourselves.
Only the corrupt can hold political office. We have so ensnared those who would apply that only those who have grown callus to attack can survive. |