Unfortunately, because of the breadth of the decision in Wickard v. Filburn and subsequent Commerce Clause cases, there is virtually no limitation on what Congress and Feds can do to regulate our activities. I think Roberts was *trying* to put some limitation on it in the Obamacare case (can't remember name), but his reasoning was (or had to be given that long line of precedents) so tortured to get there IMO that it'll be easy for any judge to effectively ignore whatever restriction it was.
As for state and local governments, no, the Commerce clause hasn't enabled that except perhaps indirectly. Directly, the broad Commerce Power reading courts have given makes it easier for Feds to overrule actions by state/locals.
Indirectly, though, this broad reading of Article I (transforming it from a statement of limited federal powers to a statement of unlimited ones) just enables and encourages the "government is here to make life better" notion. If you look at Jackson's rationale it isn't so bad (Jackson, after all, was a pretty bright guy and a fine jurist), but if you look at what has happened when his rule was in the hands of second- and third-rate Supremes, and third- and fourth-rate judges in the lower courts, the federal rationale trumping state/local action is invariably some "better society"/"greatest good for the greatest number" nonsense. And you see that the opposing position invariably couches things in terms of the relative benefits of having the feds helping us coerce each other or having the states/locals helping us coerce each other.
Look carefully at much of the "state's rights" argument against judicial activism and you see that it is a debate about which part of the "state" [used as a synonym for government in general] has the rights to threaten people with bad consequences if they behave in one way and give them good consequences when they behave another way. Some want the fed government to have the power to coerce (most modern liberals), others want that power reserved for state [a particular kind of geographically-determined government] and local governments. Neither, however, has much interest in restraining themselves in the support of some government action to coerce other people.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the disgusting re-education of several generations of Americans. The same deplorable result can be seen in a LOT of different topics beyond what you would call statism - social and moral beliefs and standards, even sports (see the concussion thread hahahaha). The thing is, Wade, those crowd-followers - the disgustingly re-educated masses - now have the voting majority by a wide margin. And lest you see any hope of undoing the situation, just look around at who dominates the three primary avenues of shaping minds: the education establishment itself, the news media, and the entertainment community.
Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker
I have very little hope. A nation that re-elects people like our current President, majorities that can't find anyone better than Iowa's current governor, a nation that concedes the "leadership" function to the selections made by Republican and Democratic parties when neither has proven themselves worthy of their role in decades, a nation that pays more attention to what actors say about social problems and political worth than it does to engineers and nurses, a nation that thinks either CNN or FoxNews or any other network is worthy of their time, a nation whose citizens can rarely discuss politics more deeply than the sound bites provided by candidate election committees? A nation whose holders of graduate and professional degrees are no better at filtering out the noise than high school drop outs or the victims of Downs syndrome. A nation whose citizens have barely heard of Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Burke, and Tocqueville, much less actually read, discussed, or simply thought about their ideas.
No, I'm not very hopeful.
I don't see the Thomas Paines among us. I don't see the Jeffersons and the Madisons and the Adamses and the Franklins. And I certainly don't see any George Washingtons. But I do see a nation that would support the locking up any Paul Reveres or tSam Adamses.
No, I'm not very hopeful. We may have enough inertia to hold the forces of darkness out until the Babel of our social democracy and our deference to authority and our me-me-me-ness finally implodes like a worn-out Vegas resort.
I might be one of the lucky ones, since my prior bad living is likely to mean I fail to reach our average life expectancy. But the Great Experiment is on life support and our respirator cords are so damn frayed that anyone who tries to plug the machine in is more likely to get electrocuted than he or she is to get the patient breathing better.
No, I'm not very hopeful. Not at all.
Your line about Don Quixote: the major difference between Don Quixote and you (plural you including all those who deplore the various manifestations of "statism") is this:
When Don Quixote fought the windmills, the windmills did NOT become exponentially stronger. You guys in splitting the forces of good, have indeed strengthened extremely the exact people who are doing the most harm in terms of expanding statism. Can't you see that?
Ah, but you err in thinking that there are forces of good being split. Because Pogo was right.
The enemy is not the liberals or the conservatives. It is not CNN and it is not FoxNews. It is not the Republicans, it is not the Democrats. It is not the left or the right or the center. It's not even that Obama slug.
The enemy is met every day. In the mirror. It is us.
Politicians, bureaucrats, they're just really expensive prostitutes with a lifetime supply of penicillin.
It's us, the addicts to sex with really expensive prostitutes, who are the disease carriers.
The problem isn't the whorehouse. It isn't even that the whorehouse is now taller than the Twin Towers. The problem is that we all want to keep building whorehouses even though we're suffering from late-stage syphilis.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)