Resurrect The Republic

[Aloysius]

your problem is not with federalism/subsidarity, but with democracy itself. sorry, can't help you there, but Catholic Principals hold that no matter what form of government it is, monarchy democracy or republic, it is best excercised at a local level, and that far away central powers do NOT have the competancy nor the responsibility to deal with local issues.

a local government pandering to the local people is not as much of a problem in my opinion, and it's much better than a far away central power pandering only to the rich and powerful.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1397755' date='Oct 4 2007, 09:37 PM']Something being "decided" by force of arms does not determine whether it is the right or just thing (unless you want to have a philosophy of "might-makes-right"), nor does it determine that ever-increasing central federal government power must be the path of the future. I would say the end of slavery was the only good to come out of that war, whose outcome overall has been detrimental to the Republic.
Actually, all the war decided was that the states had no right to secceed from the Union, even though this right was recognized by many before as being implied by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Lincoln himself prior to the war (Lincoln called this a "sacred right" in an 1848 speech).[/quote]
The nature of Federalism in the US was debated before the adoption of the Constitution, e.g. in the Federalist Papers. A strong, centralized government was favored by the likes of Hamilton, with a more decentralized approach favored by the likes of Jefferson. This debate continued throughout the first half of the 19th century, driven primarily by - let's be honest - the issue of slavery, hence all the compromises, e.g. Maine and Missouri, etc. Perhaps the word "decided" is not completely accurate. "Asserted" would be better. What was Lincoln supposed to do when the Southern states seceded? His Constitutional role was to defend the Union. Unfortunately, he had a much different vision for the post-war South than the Johnson and the Reconstruction Congress. Who knows how things might have turned out if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1397755' date='Oct 4 2007, 09:37 PM']The path taken by the country since Lincoln is one contrary to that invisioned by the founders, who were divided between the Federalists, who wanted a central government held in check by the states, and the Republicans, who wanted very little central government power at all over the individual states.

Jefferson and Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions declared that individual states could in fact nullify federal laws.
The principle of subsidiarity and states' rights is formulated in the (much neglected) Tenth Amendment:
The Tenth Amendment has been totally disregarded by many subsequent judicial rulings.[/quote]
As to the whether the path taken by this country is contrary to the one envisioned by the Founders, that's a matter of opinion, IMHO. The whole point of our Constitution is that's it's flexible and allows for adaptation as needed, i.e. through the Amendment process. You don't like the way it's adapted, which is fine, but nothing was foisted on you, it all happened through a Constitutional process. As for nullification, that was obviously settled by the Civil War.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1397755' date='Oct 4 2007, 09:37 PM']I called it a "dangerous two-edged sword" in a prior post. The problem is that as long as government is by fallen sinful men, and especially in an age which rejects much of the Christian ethos, the tendency is too strong for it to do evil. Since power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the safest thing is to limit the power of central government so that it can do the least damage.
If a state or local government is evil or corrupt, it can only do so much damage, however if a powerful central government is rotten, the damage is far more widespread.
Those who (like "Son of Angels") want to expand the powers of the federal government in the belief that it will allow it do more good, are extremely naive in their thinking.


Actually the SCOTUS acted completely against the Constitution in Roe v. Wade, contradiciting the Tenth Amendment, and using as an excuse a completely bogus "implied" "right to privacy" nowhere actually stated in the Constitution.
The proper role of the SCOTUS is to [i]interpret[/i] the law as found in the Constitution, not change the meaning to something entirely different, and in effect legislate from the bench as in Roe v. Wade.
I do not worship this modern idol of "Democracy," and neither in fact did the American founding fathers. The word "Democracy" is nowhere found in our country's founding documents, and a number of the founders wrote rather vehemently against democracy.
America was concieved as a representative republic, not as a direct democracy.[/quote]
Look, I'm not sure who this vile, far away government is you're talking about. In the US, [i]we're[/i] the government. Indeed, my main beef is not that "government" is bad, naughty, or whatever, but that corporatism and Big Money have so perverted the political process.

As for Roe v. Wade, the Court's job is to interpret law, as you note. I'm not sure why you think it acted outside its remit in this case.

Regarding "Democracy," yes, I painted with a broad brush. The point is, majority rules. I think that President Bush has been a train wreck for this country, and could similarly complain about the South and West forcing him on me. But that's how the system works.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1397755' date='Oct 4 2007, 09:37 PM']States' rights and limited central government is both more in accord with the intention of America's founders AND with Church social teaching of subsidiarity.[/quote]On the former point, in your opinion; on the latter, I'll leave that to those more learned than myself.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1397755' date='Oct 4 2007, 11:37 PM']The problem is that as long as government is by fallen sinful men, and especially in an age which rejects much of the Christian ethos, the tendency is too strong for it to do evil. Since power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the safest thing is to limit the power of central government so that it can do the least damage.
If a state or local government is evil or corrupt, it can only do so much damage, however if a powerful central government is rotten, the damage is far more widespread.[/quote]Are the Monarchists aware of this?