Federal government overreach is a persistent issue, challenging the principles of limited government envisioned by the Founding Fathers. This article explores the extent of this overreach, its historical context, and its implications, particularly focusing on its conflict with the values of individual liberty, family, and faith.
Historical Context and Foundational Principles
The Founding Fathers meticulously crafted the Constitution to establish a government with limited powers, reserving most authorities to the states and the people. As George Washington warned, the consolidation of powers in the federal government poses a significant threat to liberty. He cautioned against the encroachment of one branch over another, which could lead to despotism (ConstitutionalStudies).
Similarly, Thomas Jefferson highlighted the dangers of judicial overreach, fearing that the federal judiciary would gradually erode state powers and lead to a centralized, powerful federal government. He pointed out that the judiciary often draws more power to itself, contributing to the consolidation of federal authority at the expense of state sovereignty (ConstitutionalStudies).
Encroachments on State Jurisdictions
Over time, the federal government has increasingly encroached on areas traditionally managed by states. Congress has passed laws preempting state powers, and the executive branch has expanded its administrative control over state affairs. The judiciary, too, has ventured into areas reserved for state jurisdiction, thereby breaking down the constitutional boundaries set by the Founders (ConstitutionalStudies).
For instance, the use of federal funds to coerce state compliance with federal standards has become a common practice. This strategy often involves attaching stringent regulations to federal aid, effectively bribing states to cede their powers. Such actions undermine the principle of federalism and weaken state sovereignty (ConstitutionalStudies).
Many are upset by the price of homes and want government to do something about prices. In most cases government should not be involved in attempting to control prices, it almost always backfires. However, in this case the problem is, in part, caused by the federal government, which controls 67% of Utah lands (Geology.Utah.gov). It is quite shocking to view the BLM Map to observe just how little of Utah is privately owned.
The Expansion of Executive and Judicial Powers
The executive branch has increasingly relied on administrative law and executive orders to implement policies, often bypassing Congress. This trend began with the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 and has grown significantly, particularly during the New Deal era and beyond. Presidents have used executive orders to enact policies without congressional approval, extending their influence far beyond the constitutional limits (ConstitutionalStudies) (ConstitutionalStudies).
Judicial activism further exacerbates the problem. Courts have taken on legislative roles, creating policies under the guise of interpreting laws. This undermines the separation of powers and allows unelected judges to make decisions that should be within the purview of elected representatives (ConstitutionalStudies) (ConstitutionalStudies).
Market Distortion in Healthcare
The following two examples are but two of many market distorting policies that result in higher taxes for the individual, acting as a mechanism to transfer money from families to businesses and banks via taxation.
My experience working within the healthcare system has highlighted how federal funding distorts markets. Hospital CEOs and Health Systems IT directors often feel compelled to spend grants, fearing future funding loss if they do not. This leads to unnecessary infrastructure investments, raising costs for patients. Federal funds encourage spending without earning, leading to inefficiencies and higher prices.
Unlike the federal government, which can levy taxes and operate with a budget detached from actual revenue, the Utah state government is constitutionally required to balance its budget annually. This ensures fiscal responsibility and accountability. If individuals were allowed to accumulate debt without limits, bankruptcy would be inevitable, highlighting the need for stringent fiscal policies at the federal level.
The federal government's partnership with private banks, such as the Federal Reserve, exacerbates the issue. According to federalreservehistory.org, “the Reserve Banks are private corporations accountable to the Board'' which means that the banks have a fiduciary duty to ensure profitable returns to their owners. Who is on the board? Leadership from the banks who they are supposed to regulate. This privately held bank can create money out of thin air, allowing the government to extend its spending far beyond its income. Consequently, most tax revenue ends up paying interest to banks, diverting funds away from essential services and public welfare.
Restoring Legislative Authority
Understanding the roles of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches is crucial. The legislative branch makes laws, the judicial branch interprets them, and the executive branch enforces them. However, the Chevron Doctrine disrupted this balance by allowing federal agencies to interpret and create policies. This doctrine effectively granted executive agencies the ability to create, interpret, and enforce laws.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron Doctrine, restoring some balance. This decision presents an opportunity for state governments to reclaim control of their resources and governance. The state attorney general, governor, and legislature must leverage this ruling to reassert state sovereignty and uphold the Constitution's intent (Loper V. Raimondo).
Implications for Individual Liberty and Family Values
The overreach of the federal government has significant implications for individual liberty and family values. By centralizing power, the federal government diminishes the ability of individuals and states to make decisions best suited to their unique circumstances. This centralization often leads to one-size-fits-all solutions that do not account for the diverse needs of different communities.
Moreover, the encroachment of federal authority disrupts the family unit, which is the cornerstone of a healthy society. Policies imposed from Washington can undermine parental rights and family autonomy, interfering with the ability of families to raise their children according to their values and beliefs (ConstitutionalStudies) (ConstitutionalStudies).
The Path Forward: Emphasizing State and Individual Sovereignty
To address federal overreach, it is crucial to reaffirm the principles of federalism and limited government. This involves reducing the reliance on federal funds that come with strings attached and encouraging states to assert their rights under the Tenth Amendment. It also requires a re-evaluation of the scope of executive and judicial powers, ensuring that all branches of government operate within their constitutional limits (ConstitutionalStudies) (ConstitutionalStudies).
As individuals, we must advocate for policies that respect personal freedom and family integrity, recognizing that these are fundamental to a thriving society. By emphasizing state and individual sovereignty, we can foster an environment where liberty, family, and faith can flourish.
Conclusion
The overreach of the federal government represents a significant departure from the principles of limited government and individual liberty. By understanding the historical context and the implications of this overreach, we can take steps to restore the balance of power envisioned by the Founders, ensuring that governance remains close to the people and true to the values that underpin our nation.
Sources:
コメント