Limited Federal Powers

extreme

Preserving American Freedom > Limiting the Expanse of Government Power > Limited Federal Powers

We support state sovereignty reserved under the Tenth Amendment and oppose mandates beyond the scope of federal authority~~. We further support abolition of federal agencies involved in activities not originally delegated to the federal government under a strict interpretation of the Constitution~~.

Abolition would cancel the vast majority of the federal government. While conservatives want to shrink the federal government, we should not prescribe cataclysmic remedies.

Fault:

extreme

Comments

10th amendment

Submitted by Rene (not verified) on Tue, 2009-12-22 09:11.

Your comment that abolishing federal agencies that are not constitutionally allowable under a strict reading of the constitution is extreme and would be "cataclysmic" defines the problem in Washington DC. A conservative view is to phase out as quickly as possible all the above agencies in order to protect and restore the constitution to its original legal place. You are correct that abolition would cancel the vast majority of the fed govt and that is a good thing. Our collective and individual financial woes would be wiped out in short order if the above mentioned agencies were abolished. The problem we have is too much power in DC at the expense of States Rights which is in conflict with that which THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED AND CODIFIED. On a related note, any federal judge that reasons and rules on the basis that the constitution is a "living and breathing" document that changes automatically with the times should be impeached, removed from office and barred from the bench as this position removes rule of law based on the written constitution and replaces it with rule of whim and precedent. The constitution has a mechanism for change should it be required; that mechanism is, by design, difficult in order that those changes not be made with frivolity.

In Federalist Paper #44,

Submitted by Aren Cambre on Tue, 2009-12-22 23:47.

In Federalist Paper #44, James Madison argues for your take but acknowledges, in unflattering terms, that there can be different interpretations.

He prescribes a clear remedy should interpretation go too far: "election of more faithful representatives [who can] annual the acts of [expansionists]" and "exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives." In other words, if you don't like how they are interpreting the Constitution, then elect different people.

"We the people" have had that power since 1789. However, post-New Deal Congressional mindsets shows that the country does not want a fundamentalist interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Once can be conservative without subscribing to fundamentalist Constitutional interpretation. That is an extreme viewpoint that only guarantees non-electability.

Post new comment

Random plank

Strengthening the Economy > Government Spending > Unfunded Mandates

We oppose all unfunded mandates by the federal and state governments including unreasonable requirements on voluntary emergency response personnel. State mandates without full funding should be included in the government body's annual increase spending limits.

Reason:

The part about emergency response personnel makes this plank unfocused.

"State mandates without full funding should be included in the government body's annual increase spending limits." Huh?

Also, do we really oppose all unfunded mandates? For example, consider how the Texas Public Information Act mandates openness. This is an unfunded mandate that imposes compliance costs on jurisdictions, but it's an excellent practice.

wordy, vague, extreme

Problems

Show problem parts of the platform:

Platforms promote principles and policies. Planks must not push particular polymorphic political proposals, including bills.about a specific bill (6)

Parts of these were recently implemented.accomplished (11)

Parts of these only promote limited religious viewpoints.advances religious doctrine (8)

Too many positions already overwhelm voters. We cannot add more without a plan to cut ballot complexity.another elected office (6)

The GOP should not be a virulent, anti-homosexual crusade.anti-homosexual crusade (6)

These destroy useful customs or start us down slippery slopes.bad precedent (17)

Cliches belong on the playground, not in serious platforms.cliche (5)

These contradict other planks.contradictory (13)

These simply go too far, overshooting a rational remedy.extreme (25)

These have factual errors.incorrect (11)

These planks advanced contemporary liberal causes or expand government.leftist (22)

These planks require belief in something that is untrue.misinformed (18)

These are not appropriate for a platform document.misuse of platform (6)

These planks have minor punctuation or grammatical errors.needs copyedit (8)

These problems were fixed before the 2008 platform was published.no longer relevant (3)

"Black helicopters" and paranoid conspiracy have no place in our party.paranoid (15)

Parts of these do nothing useful.pointless (61)

These proposals would make our kids stupider.reduces education quality (3)

These planks are internally redundant or repeat other parts of the platform.redundant (41)

These planks should propose a more general solution.too specific (6)

These planks are unclear or unfocused.vague (19)

Puffy prose, hackneyed phrases, and obscure words create pinheaded, unfocused, and inaccessible platforms. Platforms must be simple and direct.wordy (47)