I note your presumption is that people actually want all of those things within their state. I believe that is inaccurate. For example, while some do, most states do not want to be 'Sanctuary States', nor do most wish to unduly restrict gun laws, and so on.
"Provide for the common defense" is right there in the stated purpose of the whole Constitution, and that's what immigration law and border control are about. That is a legitimate federal obligation and power. The sanctuary states have made their decision at the state level, in spite of federal law, it was not imposed at the federal level.
Aside from A few federal infringements on the RKBA--like registering and taxing the transfer of Class III arms and "destructive devices", and requiring dealers keep paperwork and a license, most infringements are done at the State and Local levels.
I can walk into a gun shop in ND, whip out my CCW permit, fill out the 4473, pay the man, and walk out with a pistol--with full capacity magazines and as much ammo as I can afford. No muss, no fuss. Without the CCW permit, I'd just have to wait for the NICS check to clear and nothing else would change. Try that in New York, or New York City (The standard double stack magazine would be banned, just for starters.) and you can't get the same stuff, and the paperwork is a lot more of an infringement.
Let those states that wish to emulate the Federal 'Welfare from cradle to grave' or make it easy for non-citizens to spend state tax dollars to attend its universities do so if they wish. They are sovereign to do so. Am happy for them if their citizens wishes to tax large soda cups to keep them healthy, or to restrict drilling on state lands to 'protect the environment' and starve the state kitty or to fund progressive schemes that spend tons of money like PP. It is their right to be free to be happy their way.
All states get federal funding for Medicaid, highway construction/maintenance, water treatment, and a host of other full or partial grants that pave the way for the programs liked by the parasite class and businesses alike. "Federal Money" paves main street, "Federal Money" keeps the school lunch on the table, "Federal Money" helps keep the lights on all around.
My point is that that money goes to the States from the Federal Government, and to a great extent, the disbursement of that money is done by the State Legislatures. It's like being given a sack of toys to hand out a Christmas, they get to be loved as Santa, but don't get the nasty task of raising that revenue. Whether they are a 'sanctuary state' or not, they all get funding to distribute that way, all 50 legislatures, and as a result, some of them are not going to want the nasty job of raising every dime they disburse, whether those disbursements be as welfare, Medicaid, highway/infrastructure improvement contracts, grants, whatever.
Right now,
every State gets funds from the Feds. Arguably, that isn't the job of the Federal Government, but also arguably, I don't see State Legislatures standing in line at the complaint window unless it is to gripe about
not getting enough. Getting the States to line up against that "painless" (for the state legislature) revenue stream is going to be a difficult task.
The states that choose not to do so are the ones that will be cheaper to live in, have less restrictive taxes and be able to support a higher standard of living.
The beauty in our federalist system is that the citizens of a state are free to elect those they wish to control them. Other states can act differently and elect other types.
The country comprising our 50 states is extraordinary not because they are alike so often, but because they are so different. Their citizens want different things and will always reason differently.
Whoa, here, It is as if you think I am arguing against states rights and the limitation of Federal Power. You got that wrong. The States were sovereign entities with a loose Federal Government for the purpose of standardizing weights, measures, and internal coinage for trade, keeping the post roads open, and for settling disputes as final arbiter in disputes between the states. It established a minimum standard of Rights to be legislatively undisputed, and provided for the common defense with a small standing army, a navy to protect international trade and our coastal waters, and the power to limit immigration into the States and territories (and possessions) who were within its Constitutional Authorization to do so.
Since the matter of "States' Rights" was 'settled' in 1865, and the
National Government imposed, we have been growing (farther) away from the foundational concepts of
These United States into a Federally dominated National Government which, with the 17th Amendment rendered the State Governments largely moot. With the power to select the Senate gone from the State Governments, the only power the States had left at the Federal Level, aside from whoever was elected by the people, was the power to endorse specific candidates for those Federal positions, held not by anyone elected per se, but by the political Party chiefs in the State political Parties.
It is they who are the kingmakers, who select the candidates who will do their bidding, who groom the local district and state office holders (and candidates) for the big league games on Capitol Hill. Those political Party chiefs are chosen by delegates from the district level. Until the delegates sent by those districts demand people who will comply with the constitution as candidates, demand that their State Parties comply as well, it won't happen.
The State political organizations, for the most part, seem perfectly happy with the arrangement.
The rot goes to the core, the blemishes on the outside are just a symptom of far deeper ills.
I think we are stronger having that system and not a single, unified way to operate like we are evolving into.
Within the Constitutionally Authorized duties of the Federal Government and the several States, I agree. Everyone in that has been coloring outside the lines for so long, it is as if no one knows where the lines are.
Honestly, I really wish a couple of states like California go full-Socialist as that model will fail miserably for the rest of the states to witness and remind them of what not to do. Strengthening California's ability to fail by giving it the energies currently expended within the federal jurisdiction will accelerate that process. The only caveat is that California has no right to seek relief from the other states for their weaknesses self-inflicted.
As originally set up, and as long as California did not break legitimate Federal law, they would have been able to fail on their own. With the amount of Federal control at present (and funding), it is as if the rest of us are obligated to pick up the pieces and pay for the fiscal mess created by their acts of rebellion and mismanagement.
Californians, at least those who stay, should have to pick up that tab.
While I know there are many good, conservative, Californians who would have the pain of their not-so-smart fellows imposed upon them despite their opposition to the policies which will inevitably bring that, the pain of not having Federal bailout money injected into the system would precipitate that failure sooner, while the mess was not so extensive, the overall and long-term grief would be much less.
Wish I was smart enough to answer that succinctly.
You didn't do badly at all.
I do wish to have throttles onto the power of those that make laws that make them directly assert the portion of the Constitution that authorizes that law with a mechanism for veto power by the collective states somehow incorporated. I know that has to be done effectively or we will come to a standstill so it must be smartly done.
How about:
Every Bill brought before Congress not removing a program, law, or regulation not Constitutionally authorized shall have any new program, law, revenue source, regulation, or any matter created accompanied by a cite giving the Constitutional Authorization for that action being within Federal purview or something like that.
I wish those same people to never possess the power to make laws that exempt themselves.
That concept goes back to The Magna Carta, that no one is exempt from the law, not even the King. That Congress chose who did not have to comply, independent of Rights enumerated in the Constitution, was just wrong.
Term limits are useful if done correctly.
Agreed.
Removal of the 17th Amendment.
Yes!! Key to restoring the power to the States, it would give the States a say in Congress, directly, veto power over the schemes of the House, which would balance interests of the people by retaining the power to kill Senate initiatives. What was originally intended and necessary to balancing power.
[/quote]
Some type of re-review of federal judges by Congress on maybe a 6 or ten year basis.
[/quote]I'm all for that, although I believe the executive branch (POTUS) has the authority to call for the resignation of any and all of them if appointed (except SCOTUS). Keep in mind, though, that the balance of power in Congress changes, and that review is a two edged sword.
I would like to see the decisions of such courts limited to the application of law to the facts, and an end to the invention or insertion of words, phrases, laws, or rights from the bench. I'm not sure if a review process would guarantee that, but an Amendment might provide means for impeachment if that was violated.
