From a letter sent by Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin to President-elect Donald Trump (link is to an Adobe Acrobat document in .PDF format):
The question is not what functions the federal government should give back to the states, but what functions should the federal government have in the first place. The federal government was originally created to be a small, central government of limited powers, with everything else left to the states. Through years of federal overreach, this model has been turned on its head, and now is the time to right the ship. Power flows from the people to the government, not the other way around.
I couldn't agree more!
If Mr. Trump can restore this constitutional balance, he'll be remembered forever as one of the great Presidents, IMHO. Needless to say, it'll be anathema to the statist left, who regard 'Big Brother' as an feature rather than a bug, an asset rather than a liability. Nevertheless, I suspect the Founding Fathers would agree more with Mr. Walker than with the statists.
Peter
8 comments:
He can't do it alone and I don't believe for a minute all those lawyers on the federal payroll (congressmen and senators) are about to give up power over much of anything. After all, they have to have something to oversee and exempt themselves from.
I am convinced that a POTUS could right the ship by use of executive orders disestablishing departments for which there is no constitutional authority. FedGov has the responsibility of Foreign relations, war, and interstate commerce. That's it. Anyone doing anything else, Trump could order it closed down. Trump could refuse to execute any court decision not pursuant to the US Constitution and refer the judge making any such decision to congress for removal. If Congress refused, then, deal with them in a way they understand. They've been much of the problem as well.
I seriously doubt POTUSE has any intention of creating a smaller government. The GOP has not shown any such inclination in its last few cracks at the WH. Why does anyone think this round will be any different?
I'd just read John Yoo's piece on federalism from Philly's special on the 225th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20161222_Bills_of_Rights_at_225__Framers_put_federalism_at_core_of_Bill_of_Rights.html
It all sounded great until I got to this: "Federalism allows the nation to experiment with the best policies. If a state hits on a good program, as Wisconsin did with welfare reform in the late 1980s, Congress can adopt it nationally."
Congress can adopt it nationally? I can only imagine (and hope) that he's reading that again now, and banging his head against the wall.
Could he? Yes.
On day one, he could issue an executive order that no federal regulation has the force of law unless and until it has been adopted into law by Congress. With the simple act, the whole house of cards falls apart.
But I very much doubt he'll do it. (Heck, I very much doubt Cruz would have done it. Electing people who promis e to diminish the power of the office they're seeking doesn't have much track record of actually working.)
Why Mr. Walker was my first choice for president.
Ah, but Peter, the progressive left is all for limiting and restricting big government. Very much so when the other side attains control. For the next at least four years their constant complaint will be government overreach.
But should they ever again obtain power in a POTUS and at least one house of Congress and it will be Federal control with an iron boot.
I do hope that Mr. Trump takes Governor Walker's advice to heart, but the entrenched US bureaucracy greatly resembles the Aegean Stables both in content and effort required for an honest cleaning.
The "Founding Fathers" disagreed more than they agreed, but were able to compromise and create a government. The reaction to today's government will vary widely on which Founding Father we hold a seance to ask.
Post a Comment