Why does the far Right and the far Left jump first to advocating revolutionary force or violence? This seems like arrested development, or a problem of impulse control. People are conservative. Human nature is conservative. It is as simple as that.
We don't need revolution to advance Federalism, for example, Michael Greve suggests that Congress need not affirmatively abolish federal entitlements. It need merely fall down on the job of creating them. The Supreme Court simply does not need to cooperate with Congressional desires for big national government.
Eventually we need to create Constitutional limits to Federal power, or rather we need to reaffirm the original Constitution. We are too big, and we need to empower, or re-empower the regions and states with great independence and variety. The fact is that the Constitution's structure and text is Federalist. But, “eventually,” is the key word here. It can't be done overnight.
Every advance toward independence can lead to further advances. Slow change, incremental change, may not seem like much, but these changes can lead to Constitutional constraints. This is better than advocating revolution, looking for one big solution, or doing nothing.
Greve reminds us of the pull of the two poles, one toward federalism, the other toward centralizing, which continues. Tocqueville warned us about the centralizing tendencies of democracies, but people are actually becoming increasingly discontented about lobby-ridden government, and this can be a basis for revival. In some areas, e.g. civil rights and federal entitlement programs, the revival has been under way with Supreme Court constraints. New liberal Justices, however, may try to reverse this revival.
Greve thinks that Federalism's future hangs on cooperation between the Supreme Court and political constituencies. The Supreme Court can be constrained by the political environment, and the Leave-Us-Alone constituencies, mentioned in an earlier post, seem to be the only existing force for Federalism.
Unlike Greve, I argue that Federalism's chief virtue is evolutionary, having citizen choice, state independence, and competition, relate directly to Ordered Evolution. Federalism constrains big national government, stops monopolistic movements and gives autonomy to the people and the states. Most importantly, Federalism can allow the Ordered Evolution confirmed by nature, which is affirmed in the Theoevolutionary Church. Without evolution, we cannot reach Godhood, the goal of nature. How about that for Federalist incentive?
The bottom line, the foundation, the historical base of culture is religion, which has always provided direction for human behavior. Therefore, along with reviving Federalism, establishing the virtues of the Theoevolutionary Church is our first concern.
We don't need revolution to advance Federalism, for example, Michael Greve suggests that Congress need not affirmatively abolish federal entitlements. It need merely fall down on the job of creating them. The Supreme Court simply does not need to cooperate with Congressional desires for big national government.
Eventually we need to create Constitutional limits to Federal power, or rather we need to reaffirm the original Constitution. We are too big, and we need to empower, or re-empower the regions and states with great independence and variety. The fact is that the Constitution's structure and text is Federalist. But, “eventually,” is the key word here. It can't be done overnight.
Every advance toward independence can lead to further advances. Slow change, incremental change, may not seem like much, but these changes can lead to Constitutional constraints. This is better than advocating revolution, looking for one big solution, or doing nothing.
Greve reminds us of the pull of the two poles, one toward federalism, the other toward centralizing, which continues. Tocqueville warned us about the centralizing tendencies of democracies, but people are actually becoming increasingly discontented about lobby-ridden government, and this can be a basis for revival. In some areas, e.g. civil rights and federal entitlement programs, the revival has been under way with Supreme Court constraints. New liberal Justices, however, may try to reverse this revival.
Greve thinks that Federalism's future hangs on cooperation between the Supreme Court and political constituencies. The Supreme Court can be constrained by the political environment, and the Leave-Us-Alone constituencies, mentioned in an earlier post, seem to be the only existing force for Federalism.
Unlike Greve, I argue that Federalism's chief virtue is evolutionary, having citizen choice, state independence, and competition, relate directly to Ordered Evolution. Federalism constrains big national government, stops monopolistic movements and gives autonomy to the people and the states. Most importantly, Federalism can allow the Ordered Evolution confirmed by nature, which is affirmed in the Theoevolutionary Church. Without evolution, we cannot reach Godhood, the goal of nature. How about that for Federalist incentive?
The bottom line, the foundation, the historical base of culture is religion, which has always provided direction for human behavior. Therefore, along with reviving Federalism, establishing the virtues of the Theoevolutionary Church is our first concern.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment