Freedom of speech and assembly?

The nation was never intended to be governed as a whole archer, except in the areas of its relations with foreign nations and in the relations between the states. If Colorado wants to allow marijuana to be grown, sold and consumed and Wyoming doesn't, what business of the general government is that? If Massachusetts wants to have universal health care in their state and North Dakota does not, what business is that of the federal government? If Colorado doesn't want to levy a privilege tax upon its citizens to provide an income for them in their old age, why should the federal government care? If Montana wishes to allow its citizens to own a select fire weapon, why should the federal government care? If Chicago wants to prohibit the ownership of handguns by the people who live there, why should a Colorado citizen care what they decide? If Utah wants to establish a state church, who cares? Now, if California wants to invade Mexico, and that will drag Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the battle as well, now we care because California shouldn't have sole say in what happens there because all of us have a stake in it. If the good folks of Louisiana want to levy a tariff on all goods entering and leaving the Mississippi on their way to the Gulf, we care about that as well because everyone up river of them is going to be impacted. Colorado shouldn't be able to dam up the rivers and shut off the flow of water into other states and other countries either.

The Constitution is very clear on this - the general government oversees that which affects all of the states and their relations with each other as well as the relations that the states have with foreign nations. EPA? Certainly - no one should be able to foul the water that flows into another state. Single currency? You betcha. One navy? All well and good. Mutual defense if any are attacked? You mess with one, you mess with all. One trade agreement with Germany for all the states? Another good one - keeps the states from getting crosswise with each other. Taxing the citizens of Colorado to educate the citizens of Mississippi? Nope. Telling a Colorado farmer he can't grow wheat that year, even for his own family, because it could impact the world wheat price? You must be joking, right? Can't sell a select fire weapon anywhere in any state to a citizen if it was manufactured after 1986? I must be hallucinating - perhaps infringe doesn't mean what I think it means or what the dictionary defines it as, but I could have sworn the national Congress was prohibited from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms because the security of the state of Colorado was dependent upon its citizens being able to defend it from invasion, tyranny and despotism.

No archer, the one voice thing only applies to foreign nations. It is important that there only be one voice when speaking to Great Britain, Germany, Libya or any of the rest of them, but only one voice within the nation itself is one government without any limits to its power - and that is simply a recipe for disaster as every other nation in the history of civilization has found out at one time or another. I'm trying to avoid having this one be the next one to learn that lesson all over again.

I have to agree with LJ on this point.....you are living too much in the past PS....basing too much on what this country was, not what it is now. Like it or not, it's a modern world, state lines mean little as people pass across them daily and carry their needs and desires with them. The same with corporations that reside not in one state, but in many.......and those who do business in all the states. We can no longer have differents sets of rules for different states, I think the health insurance mess is a perfect example. Currently states regulate insurance providers and have a say in what companies can sell in their state, and who cannot. For people who move from state to state this places a burden on them.....if you move from CO to NY you will probably have to change providers. This is nonsense.....we are one nation and things like insurance should move with us.......it isn't like we are moving to a foreign country.

I understand how appealing it is to think that America is the same country it was 200 years ago......just bigger. But that is a fantasy. America has changed, some for the better, some maybe not, but we have to deal with the reality of those changes not keep dwelling on what is lost. Industry, technology, health care....all have changed the nature of our country.....we live longer.....we travel farther and faster, we work far differently than we used to, we are more educated and more aware of not only our own nation but of the world itself........we can't go back PS....it just isn't going to happen.

Actually the Constitution is quite clear that it reigns supreme over the individual states, in guaranteeing liberties to individuals, in promoting the general welfare of its citizenry, in controlling commerce between the states, and in most other aspects of government.

Interesting thoughts, PS, but I don't know that I see states pushing back as a bad thing. I see that as a way to shape and change federal law.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

archer wrote: I have to agree with LJ on this point.....you are living too much in the past PS....basing too much on what this country was, not what it is now. Like it or not, it's a modern world, state lines mean little as people pass across them daily and carry their needs and desires with them. The same with corporations that reside not in one state, but in many.......and those who do business in all the states. We can no longer have differents sets of rules for different states, I think the health insurance mess is a perfect example. Currently states regulate insurance providers and have a say in what companies can sell in their state, and who cannot. For people who move from state to state this places a burden on them.....if you move from CO to NY you will probably have to change providers. This is nonsense.....we are one nation and things like insurance should move with us.......it isn't like we are moving to a foreign country.

I understand how appealing it is to think that America is the same country it was 200 years ago......just bigger. But that is a fantasy. America has changed, some for the better, some maybe not, but we have to deal with the reality of those changes not keep dwelling on what is lost. Industry, technology, health care....all have changed the nature of our country.....we live longer.....we travel farther and faster, we work far differently than we used to, we are more educated and more aware of not only our own nation but of the world itself........we can't go back PS....it just isn't going to happen.

If I understand you correctly Archer, you are saying our constitution no longer holds value, except for those things you find convenient. The fact people move (they did in the past too), work in different states or that corporations reside in more than one state is really irrelevant outside of the fact there are some who are trying not to let corporations move to certain states. By your argument, the fact we are better educated, travel father, faster, work differently, technology is shrinking our globe, etc. we ought to be moving toward one nation on a global scale. But all the changes that take place will never dictate such a move. What you would like to see is uniformity across the nation. Why should such exist? Only because it is an inconvenience? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the constitution was not drawn up on the basis of how people worked or traveled. It had a far different goal, one that many today would like to do away with for the sake of social programs and convenience. You make a big deal out of 200 years. Compared to other major empires, this time period is very short and one should not so quickly abandon the old ways for new ways that are not nearly as well thought out.

archer wrote: I have to agree with LJ on this point.....you are living too much in the past PS....basing too much on what this country was, not what it is now. Like it or not, it's a modern world, state lines mean little as people pass across them daily and carry their needs and desires with them. The same with corporations that reside not in one state, but in many.......and those who do business in all the states. We can no longer have differents sets of rules for different states, I think the health insurance mess is a perfect example. Currently states regulate insurance providers and have a say in what companies can sell in their state, and who cannot. For people who move from state to state this places a burden on them.....if you move from CO to NY you will probably have to change providers. This is nonsense.....we are one nation and things like insurance should move with us.......it isn't like we are moving to a foreign country.

I understand how appealing it is to think that America is the same country it was 200 years ago......just bigger. But that is a fantasy. America has changed, some for the better, some maybe not, but we have to deal with the reality of those changes not keep dwelling on what is lost. Industry, technology, health care....all have changed the nature of our country.....we live longer.....we travel farther and faster, we work far differently than we used to, we are more educated and more aware of not only our own nation but of the world itself........we can't go back PS....it just isn't going to happen.

And I would agree that the federal laws need to reflect that changing reality with regards to such things as health insurance archer. I don't think that each individual state should be able to require a completely different set of inclusions for the policy to be valid in that state, or even to be sold in that state. That comes under the veil of interstate commerce, something the national government was charged with keeping regular and is actually contained as one of the powers granted to it out of the state sovereignty. So why haven't they done it? Why have they allowed the states to effectively shut off interstate commerce via state regulation? I don't have a good answer for that other than the reality that they have been so busy usurping power in areas they were never intended to operate that they have failed to properly administer what the Constitution has charged them with - the general welfare of the union of the states.

The Constitution never charged the general government with overseeing the individual welfare of each and every citizen in each and every state, or even the general welfare of an individual state within the union. What it states in very clear and precise English is that it is charged with the general welfare of the union of the states. It is charged with the management of the foreign affairs of the states, the national currency and relations between the states themselves so that they all get along and don't start a war with each other - that is what is was created to oversee. Macro, not micro. Even Alexander Hamilton, the most influential monarchist of the day, would have laughed at the thought that the primary mission of the general government was making sure that archer had enough to eat, a roof over her head, clothes on her back, a college education and access to the services of a doctor and yet this is precisely how the majority of the federal budget is spent in this day and age.

Your example of failing to keep regular the sale of health insurance in the states is another prime example of the failure of the national Congress. The Constitution doesn't authorize them to set the minimum standards of what must be included in the policies, but it sure as heck authorizes them to address California not allowing a New York company to sell a policy in California because it doesn't include a specific laundry list of coverages, render a policy purchased when one was living in New York state null and void when they move to California because it didn't contain certain coverages or attempts by a company to avoid paying the benefits contained in the contract entered into between the company and the individual who purchased the policy.

The reason we find ourselves hip deep in scat at the moment is because of the power usurped by the general government that has made the country what it is now, and the only remedy to the problem is to remedy the usurpation that has occurred that created the problem to begin with. The interference of the federal government in the domestic affairs of the state is the same issue regardless of whether we are talking about marijuana, select fire weapons, or the state of an individual citizen's welfare. None of them have anything to do with the original mission of the federal government contained in the Constitution.

The focus of the general government is macro, not micro. The individual welfare of each and every citizen in each and every state is micromanagement of the domestic affairs of the state. If that was the intent, why do we have state governments at all? Why didn't the authors simply offer up a document that stated very clearly and very precisely that the people in the states were now going to be governed by a single entity and they were going to be as subject to it in all instances as they were when they were the subjects of King George? We both know the answer to that question - it wasn't the intention; it never would have been approved. As a matter of fact, the citizens of the states at the time were so worried that they might try to do that they insisted upon further protections being enacted that limited the power of the general government even further, including the blanket protections contained in the 9th and 10th Amendments, before agreeing to join the compact.