Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
Like I said before (maybe in another thread).
There is only ONE reason you would want to take current federal law and hand it over to the states. The ONLY reason you would do this is if you are
against the current federal law.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But apparently Ron Paul thinks it's broke...he knows he can't "fix" it at the federal level...so the best
alternative is to get it moved to the states and at least some states will change the current federal law.
So if Ron Paul is trying to move some issues to the state..that is just his way of getting federal law changed...at least in some states.
That's just logical fallacy at best. The TRUE reason is that the Constitution was written to limit the powers of the Federal Government to prevent an
all-powerful central government. The States are above the Fed except in the few powers enumerated in the Constitution. Check the Supremacy Clause and
the 10th Amendment.
A lot of things are broken because they were taken over by the Fed. Look at the Post Office for an example. Things are getting so bad now that many
states are re-asserting their 10th Amendment rights. So when Doctor Paul says it should be left up to the states, he's Constitutionally right. The
Fed is supposed to be small and locked in deadlock for the most part. That's how the Founders wanted it. They figured that would be the best way to
keep them busy and out of everyone's lives -- checks and balances designed block major change to what they intended.
They also knew that all Governments go bad and that this would last as long as we were willing to protect the documents they framed after spilling a
lot of their own blood. Was it perfect? No. But it was the best the world had ever seen and led to a lot of free, prosperous folks. It worked for a
long time. Then Bankers got involved.
