To: Neocon who wrote (51820 ) 8/17/1999 11:46:00 AM From: Ilaine Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
At the time the Constitution was adopted, there were debatable issues as to whether the states had the right to, say, coin money, issue notes, impose tariffs on interstate commerce, and such. These were resolved when the Constition was adopted. There was never any question in anyone's mind that the federal government would some day arrogate to itself the right to regulate such issues as education, health, safety and welfare. I suggest to you that these are the burning issues of the day. No one today believes that states can coin money or regulate interstate commerce. Since FDR, and since Johnson, and since the Warren Court, in other words, only in the 20th century, has the federal government taken upon itself the powers which were always considered to be state powers only. When you use the word "devolve", the necessary predicate is that the federal government *has* power, and this power is then delegated. This is simply antithetical to the federal system. The federal government has powers enumerated in the Constitution, and whatever powers are necessary and proper to effectuate the enumerated powers, see Marbury v. Madison. All other powers reside in the state, or in the people. It would be unconstitional for the federal government to "devolve" any of the enumerated powers to the states. It has no other powers. I suggest to you that when the Constitution was adopted, there were very few potentially concurrent powers, I can only think of two right off the top of my head, taxation, and the police power. The grey areas have always been grey, but they were few. Your suggestion, I believe, is that the federal government can do whatever it wants because it's better armed?