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.
AMEN!
Between the Commerce clause & the "necessary & proper" clause, the feds can find an excuse to pass damn near anything.
Well, as to State races, your comment is true, but important things still happen in the State Legislatures and at the State level. And groups target those legislatures. Look at the gay marriage issue, by way of example, or the Calif. prop. on affirmative action. Important social questions are absolutely decided at the State and Local levels. That's one reason why I'm such a big fan of the League of Woman Voters. They inform you about local issues and local candidates when the media doesn't.