DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
That's always been the fatal flaw for those who demand "limited government," since they don't really want limited government, not as a matter of ideology or principle, since they do not support that principle consistently across the board.
Therein lies the rub, though. While some see "limited" government in some areas and "unlimited" government in other areas, there can be an argument made that the "unlimited" parts of government can be those parts that have their authorities from the Constitution. Taxes will take care of themselves, and no one is really opposed to paying taxes for those things they see as right. While everyone has the right to his or her opinion as to what the US government is allowed to do, there is a test for that. If it's an authority granted by the US Constitution, and the US Government chooses to use that authority, it will have to be paid for by taxes, regardless of whether or not you want the Feds to be using their authority in that manner. So, as long as a person is accepting of the Fed's actions as Constitutionally authorized, that person will, generally, accept that taxes will have to be raised to pay for it. It's when the Government is seen as acting outside the authorities granted in the Constitution, that most people start to balk at paying taxes, or having their taxes raised.
The Constitution is rather open-ended, so unless something is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, the government is theoretically authorized to do it, as long as Congress approves it and the President signs it and the Supreme Court doesn’t say it’s unconstitutional. If anyone else says it’s unconstitutional (like the author you linked in your OP), it really doesn’t matter, since it’s the Supreme Court’s call (and no one else’s).
That's not true. Unless it's granted the authority by the Constitution, it's prohibited from acting in that manner. Why would the Constitution state that the Federal Government can raise and train an army? Shouldn't it have just not said it can't?
quote:
Of course, everyone has their own opinions about what government should or should not do.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Marini wrote:quote:
In America, the administrative state traces its origins to the Progressive movement. Inspired by the theories of the German political philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Progressives like Woodrow Wilson believed that the erection of the modern state marked an “end of History,” a point at which there is no longer any need for conflict over fundamental principles. Politics at this point would give way to administration, and administration becomes the domain not of partisans, but of neutral and highly-trained experts.
That places the beginnings of the administrative state around 1920. It wasn't until 1965 or so, that Congress started to "join in the fun," and the administrative state really started to grow very quickly. The way I read it, up until the mid-1960's, Congress had resisted the Administrative State and was more aligned with "limited government."
Constitutionally, the framework may have been set up following the Civil War, particularly with the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave broad powers to the federal government over the state governments. That’s another thing that gets missed a lot, especially in discussions involving the founding fathers and their intentions for our government. The United States as we know it today was, for all intents and purposes, established by the outcome of the Civil War, not the Revolution or the Constitutional Convention.
The wealthy business interests no doubt loved the administrative state as long as it meant they could break treaties with the Natives, redraw land boundaries at will, keep their trusts and monopolies, and use the apparatus of the state to crush any strikes or labor unrest.
Woodrow Wilson may have had his faults, but all in all, the things he wanted for the U.S. government (especially our foreign policy and role in the world) didn’t really come to pass due to Republican/isolationist opposition. Perhaps the FDR years might mark the beginnings of the administrative state, especially since World War II and the Cold War created a sense of urgency in which the government had to expand and organize on a scale we had never seen before in our history. The result is what is often called the “Military-Industrial Complex,” which may be a consequence of the administrative state to which you refer. In any case, it had to have started long before the 1960s.
FDR is also known as the one who established the so-called “Imperial Presidency,” which may be another aspect of the administrative state being discussed here.
So, it’s hard to say when it actually “began,” although I would think that if it was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have said something by now. If the government has been wantonly violating the Constitution, then the people should have spoken up and voted in candidates who would have put a stop to it. But if the people didn’t do that and kept voting in the same bums, then we get what we deserve.
quote:
Even though Joether doesn't get it, Marini's example of Obamacare is spot on. The Administrative State removes things from the shoulders of Congress, so to insulate it from the voters, to an extent. Unelected officials are starting to call the shots. The EPA can make standards and rules that can have massive impacts on our daily lives, and we didn't elect them, so we can't get rid of them. We have so many Departments that are full of appointments that our elected officials are barely in control anymore.
This is what I think Marini meant with this article.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying, and anyone who has ever had to deal with a bureaucrat could likely attest to how frustrating it can be to deal with that organization.
At any time, Congress can call any official to account for what they do. If the EPA makes rules or sets standards which are questionable, Congress can call them in to testify and question them on what they’re doing. They’re not going to oversee the day-to-day operations, but if there’s a problem, then there are provisions for dealing with it. Congress hasn’t given up its prerogative in that respect. Sometimes, there can be friction between the Executive and Legislative Branches for this reason (as we’ve seen a lot of), but that’s how it goes sometimes.
In any case, I think this goes back to an earlier discussion we had in that Americans at this point seem to be at a crossroads and trying to rediscover and come to terms with its national identity, its roots, its role in the world, what role government should take in society, and where we should go from here. If the administrative state isn’t working, if it’s not good for America and not what Americans want, then by all means, we have the power to change it.
Does Congress have any real incentive to try to change things and rock the boat in Washington? Are the people going to vote them out if they don’t start showing better results? We’ll see what happens in 11 months, although I wouldn’t expect any great changes overnight. Perhaps we can work to send “Candidate Crusader” (sounds like a good name for a superhero) to Congress to clean things up, but he’s only one guy going up against a behemoth. Even experienced, long-time politicians can get chewed up and spit out. You either have to play ball or ride out of town on a rail.
Essentially, what this professor seems to be saying is that the Mob has taken over the government and Congress has just wimped out (or sold out). But it seems that the people have also wimped out (or sold out).
It’s interesting that the 1960s are noted as the beginning of the administrative state, although that decade is also prominent in that it is marked by an abundance of political activism and strong shifts in public opinion in favor of civil rights, equality, world peace – and many people were clearly quite fed up with the government and what they were doing back then.
From a certain point of view, one might suggest that the government was much worse back then, and that it only started to get better after that. Others might say that we were headed in a positive direction back then, but the people wavered and didn’t have the attention span or the staying power to maintain any form of activism or political vigilance. Whatever political activism remains (apart from the contrived activism of the major political parties) seems diffuse and ill-defined, going in all different directions. No wonder the bad guys stay in power.
Better/worse are quite subjective in their meanings. Those long-haired freaky people may have been having sit-ins and other political activist events, but that doesn't mean government is better now since there isn't as much of that.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread