@Michael – Excellent point about the constitution, so long as each state continues to recognize it. I would assume in my doomsday scenario that the first result of the dissolution of the union would be the abandoning of the constitution, though. I suppose the catch becomes finding a way to give all states free governing reign while keeping them honest to that one document.

The my-way-or-the-highway version IS the George Bush solution and something the founders vehemently opposed.

Till next time..

I supposed its not so much that I do not think states should have powers to govern within their borders, but I am adamantly against weakening the federal government's powers in a lot of areas, like education (not that they are doing a very good job of it, but to me consistency in this area is extremely important).

I am weary of elevating the constitution to too high a status; at some point I feel like people elevate the document to the status of scripture and think of the founding fathers as gods. If they were gods, they would have got it right the first time. The constitution is to be followed and respected for the sole purpose of maintaining order, but its interpretation is not absolute; it would be arrogant of someone to assume that they knew the objective truth of the document. I think its highly likely that there was probably some dispute among the wording of the constitution among the fathers themselves; otherwise it would not be left so vague. What's important is reaching a consensus among the population as to what the constitution means and how to correctly follow it; easier said than done. The constitution is almost always being debated by someone somewhere. So why cater to the majority? Its the best we can do. There's no real alternative.

Even if you break it down to the state level, you're still going to have potentially half the state unhappy or angry. Its the same problem, but on a smaller scale, except instead of people learning to live together despite their differences and compromise on important issues, you're going to have people moving between states until they find one that makes them happy, the first step towards the dissolution of the union into 50 separate nations. Next thing you know, Texas cuts off trade to Alabama, North Carolina stops taking Virginian currency, and California declares war on Colorado. It sounds extreme, but it happens every day among the nations of the world. I don't see why we should expect it to be different just because we were one nation at one time.

You may believe that health care is a right – I disagree. But, if the people of your state decide to enact a universal health care program, then under the constitution, they are authorized to do so. Same goes for education programs. And, in a system that's set up this way as the founders created – then we wouldn't see so much political battling being done by good people like you and I who simply have different beliefs on how these issues should be handled.

The one-size-fits all solution is the worst possible – because it guarantees that potentially half the country is unhappy, or even angry about – any solution at all.

The constitution doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to any person at all – and doesn't "grant" any rights or services – its goal is to limit government power to ensure that your rights have the greatest chance to flourish.

I could ramble on this issue for a long time – there's probably a lot of questions and a lot of responses that you may have. I wish I could spend more time here in the comments section of articles, but that's just not possible. I do hope to see your perspective on some other posts here in the near future – would be happy to engage you briefly on some other subjects as well.

@Michael – I basically agree with the gist of what you are saying, especially about expecting the federal government to follow the law and to follow the proper process to amend it when needed. And I agree with you on points 2,3,4 and 6, each for myriad reasons that I don't want to fill this comment space up with in explaining. I differ on 1 because I view health as an inalienable human right and I differ on 5 because I believe its very important for education to be consistent across the nation since we expect our citizens to be able to move freely across the nation, for example for the purpose of seeking employment.

@Josh – There are certain parts of politics that I think warrant varying opinions because they are healthy and there are certain parts where I think there is only one right answer. An example of the former would be economics; I believe that there is no one right answer to economic policy and that different situations call for different solutions. And example of the latter would be, to pick a very easy one, a woman's right to vote. I believe women should have that right, and I believe that anyone who says otherwise is wrong, plain and simple. Obviously most agree with that because we put it in the constitution.

However, the truth is I do not believe that every state has to agree on all issues, but I simply view the result of that as the dissolution of the union into 50 sovereign states. A libertarian US is the same thing as the European Union in my view. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I question if such a move is really what we want. I for one do not agree with the current health care system, drug policy, or marriage situation of our country, but that does not lead me to ask for a separate set of laws to be governed under. Rather, I make my case for what I think is right in an attempt to convert others and in the mean time enjoy all the things I benefit from under a federal union such as knowing that when I move across a state line, my currency is still good, my car still meets federal regulations for legality, and my education is still adequate to make me employable in my new state of residence. You don't get that kind of security in a confederacy like we saw when this nation started because there's no incentive for it from a government standpoint. To me, being inconvenienced by laws I disagree with are a small price to pay for the overwhelming convenience of consistency across the country.

I'm always happy to help with the hit count, and appreciate your willingness to defend your views here, as I did on your post.

But it continues to boggle my mind that someone who can appreciate differing points of view would fail to see the value in translating that diversity to politics.

Why should the entire nation have to agree on one type of health care reform?

Or one definition of marriage?

Or one drug policy?

Why is it so impossible to imagine that 50 independent constitutional republics, united by their common interests, but individually sovereign, could actually work very well?

After all, that's what the Constitution created. Perhaps we should try following it once in awhile.

I think the essential question lies at the heart of this – what is the proper role of the federal government under the constitution. Many people, like yourself, don't even realize that much of what the federal government does is actually unconstitutional – because they're not educated on essential constitutional framework. That's where this organization comes in.

The 10th Amendment was included to make clear that "we the people" of "the several states" created the federal government to be OUR agent, for certain enumerated purposes – and nothing more.

That means – in order for the federal government to exercise a power, it must find authorization to do so in the constitution itself. And no, that doesn't mean it requires the exact activity to be specifically listed either (see the necessary and proper clause)

But, without going into a complete dissertation of what countless articles and research papers on this site do – that means some major things that the feds do – or are considering doing – are wholly unconstitutional.

1. Health Care – Because it's popular, I'll mention the big one first. (and no, the preamble doesn't authorize it, and neither does the gW clause or the commerce clause)
2. The Drug War – and no – the commerce clause doesn't work here either
3. Federal Gun Laws – of any kind. This is a state issue.
4. War without congressional declaration – Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, for example.
5. Education – federal control or involvement is not authorized, this is another state issue.
6. The executive branch refusing to comply with Congressional mandates – laws, etc – on Guantanamo

And plenty more.

And keep in mind – the federal government wants YOU to follow the law – no matter what. If you feel it's your right to hold a particular plant, for example, they claim the authority to arrest you, fine you, or punish you in some way.

The Constitution is the rule book for the federal government – if people want freedom, they want prosperity, they want peace – the really need to start demanding that the government follow the rules all the time. And when those rules feel "outdated" (even though I don't think they are), the proper way forward is not to simply ignore the rules, it's to amend them.

Period.

I have to question your assertion that accepting the rule of the federal government is unconstitutional. I am not aware of any article of the constitution that declares the states to have more power than the federal government. I am aware of the Articles of Confederation, something that last only seven years before nearly smothering the nation, a point I made in my original post that you conveniently omitted. Why do libertarians always ignore this piece of history?

You question my assertion that people cannot be trusted to act civilly without a system of governance in place, yet you fail to provide a counter-argument to support your implied belief that they can. Instead you imply that a central government forces its entire population into one ideology, which is hilariously untrue in this country, and then follow that with the statement that a central government is the epitome of tyranny while state governance is somehow the bastion of freedom, a nice statement but perhaps a little naive.

Unlike anti-federalism, I do not think libertarianism would fail outright, but as I pointed out to you in the comments section of my blog, I find it to be a pointless endeavor. I will draw the same analogy here as I did there: consider the world to be a libertarian entity and the UN to be the central governing body. This is an exact model of how a libertarian system works. Now consider how well the whole world gets along under the UN. We have a gamut of activity, ranging at one end with nations in the EU who have gone as far as to at least share the same currency, all the way to Iran who'd erase us from the surface of the planet as soon as look at us. Now I would like someone to explain to me how we should expect the states of our nations to get along any better than the nations of our world do, because the incentive to do so would be exactly the same (read:none). If you want the United States to become 50 new countries, that's fine I guess. But let's call it what it is.

RE: Monorise. I don't see how we are NOT currently under constitutional law. Perhaps you can support your position that we are not with some evidence? And I wonder if you could also elaborate on where we are supposedly headed as a result of our alleged loss of respect for the constitution.

I find your comment about people not being able to make choices for themselves to be ironic. Isn't a libertarian trying to isolate him or herself in a state's rule BECAUSE he or she knows others will make their own choices and that they will not agree with those choices? To me, accepting the law of the federal government is not about letting others make choices for you, it is about accepting that you are not the center of the world and that you share both the benefits and responsibilities of your nation with the rest of the population. I think this is why libertarians are considered to be a little "haughty." To us non-libertarians, this point of view comes across as holier-than-thou.

Also, I prefer to be labeled a socialist, not a fascist. They are two very different things.

I hope that some will come back to my shared blog and read more; we actually rarely discuss libertarianism and hit on a lot of other topics more frequently. Again, thanks for the reads and critical responses. I will leave you with only one more comment: remember that the constitution is not a holy scripture. It is just a document, written by men, open to interpretation and amendment, and has in fact been amended 27 times already. Be careful about elevating it to too high a stature; live by the document, but do not live for it.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by ReesForCongress: RT @TenthAmendment: #10th: Ignorance From the Left: The Gift That Keeps On Giving http://bit.ly/8ml3QU…