A friend and I were talking about limiting Federal government’s powers as the Founder’s intended. He asked me something along the lines of, “What prevents the state’s government from doing the same kinds of things?”.
I replied, “I think the general idea is that because a state is a smaller geographic area, it’s easier to influence what goes on in politics.”
Is that accurate? And even if it is, it’s still possible for such things to happen provided there is no oversight from the people?
The state constitution?
What they intended was that all the powers not specifically granted to the federal government went to the people or the states as is spelled out in the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Unlike today where everything is under the thumb of Congress through a very open reading of the ‘commerce clause’, as pretty much everything is transported across state lines at some point in its lifecycle, given there are no self-sufficient regions, they claim sovereignty over everything.
Or, they even use it to control things that have a market outside of the state even if the good in question in intended for local consumption like the medical marijuana in California because it effects the national market.
As I was arguing on another forum; which is better, sending your ‘leaders’ a few thousand miles away or having them make local decisions locally?
Ignoring, of course, the moral issues of even having ‘leaders’ with a monopoly over a given area.
Most states don’t have a commerce clause or a necessary and proper clause. The only reason state governments can get away with violating their own constitution on some things is because the Federal government set the example that you can get away with it.
Most state governments aren’t that bad off when compared to the Federal gov. For instance, states cannot print money and most cannot borrow or run a deficit under most circumstances. That is why states that offer a lot of services have a lot of taxation.