Great Ebook. Great Read. Love it! Download it free.

Download it free.  Better yet.  Download it free and write your own.  If you want, I will compile them and we can make our own Ebook.

Thanks to Steve Palmer at www.thesocialleader.com

Download the Ebook free here

Whoever said, “A picture is worth 1000 words” got it backward.

Patrick Henry and the Cure for All That Ails the Government

There are at last two things that John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison got wrong in the Federalist Papers.  Both miscalculations continue to have drastic and growing consequences.  The first miscalculation is that they believed that the Supreme Court would be relatively powerless against the legislative and executive branches of government.  The Supreme Court’s power grab is the subject of another blog.  The second is that they were concerned that the power of the States would exceed the power of the Federal Government.  To remedy this belief, they inserted, at the objection of several, including Patrick Henry, what is known as the “Necessary and Proper” clause.

“The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

One of the foregoing powers mentioned in the clause is the “Interstate Commerce” clause.

regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

When put together, these two clauses have been the biggest threat to freedom that the Country has ever seen.  If you are not sure what I mean, take a look at the following editorial by Brian Hyde:

http://www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009912140329

So, here is the cure.  Narrowly, rather than broadly, interpret the interstate commerce clause.

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among several States and with the Indian Tribes;”

A narrow interpretation would effectively reduce federal power and distribute power to the states.   The effect would be that each state could decide whether or not to legalize steroids, gay marriage, marijuana and abortion.  Each state could make its own health care and investment decisions and educational policy.  The net effect would be that some states would be spectacularly successful and others would miserably fail.  People could and would choose to live in whatever state they wanted.  If Idaho banned abortions, a woman wanting an abortion could travel to and live in Colorado.  If a citizen of Massachusetts hated insanely high tax rates, they could move to Arizona.

Both smart and dumb policy would be exposed for what it is.  Citizens of stupid states would have to suffer or boot their reps.  A state could attract any kind of citizenry it wanted.  If it thought that corporations were evil, a state could decide, through policy, to attract some other group to enhance revenue.  It could pull the state equivalent of nationalization and take over whatever company they wanted.  Some states would start to look like Cuba or Venezuela.  Other states would look like Hong Kong and still others would look like Reagan America.

Both democrats and republicans would hate this.  It would require them to relinquish power.  The conservatives would love it because they are certain that the states that adopted their policies would fare far better than the states that would be under liberal control.  “Just look at California,” they would say.  “When you allow liberals to run anything, you will either have to steal from conservatives or go bankrupt.”

Tariffs and trade policy would, once and for all, show whether or not protectionist policies make any sense.  There would be no National Education Association.  Idaho would not have one.  Education in Idaho (or some other state) would be liberated from any one ideology.  If the Libertarians are right, the students of that state would be amazing.  They would be running corporations and companies in a few years.  Teachers would flock to California for better wages.  Parents with capability would move to Idaho.  Who would end up winning the ideological battle?  The important thing is that one of the two would.  The citizens of the losing state could decide to remain stupid and poor or copy the smart state.

Speculation is fun, but I want dialogue.  Please comment below.