Originally Posted by
BrushStart
What you describe as "mini-countries" is called FEDERALISM. It is our form of government as it was adopted in the Constitution 200+ years ago. This is not Ron Paul's personal opinion, he is obliged to give such powers back to the states because he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Of course, if you don't like this and feel passionate about it, you have the option to: [[1) campaign to change the Constitution, [[2) defect and renounce your citizenship to become a citizen in another nation, or [[3) you can just live with it.
The federal government should have no authority to do most of the things they do. Let me explain it to you:
Over the past century, federal power [[and influence into state affairs) has grown enormously. This has occurred through federal legislation and a doctrine known as "preemption," whereby the federal government passes a law to either usurp or prevent state laws dealing with the same issue. However, the federal government's power could not have expanded in such leaps and bounds without the assistance of the US Supreme Court.
Article 1 of the Constitution includes what is known as the "Commerce Clause", which states that Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause in such a way that effectively gives Congress wide latitude to regulate many, many types of local activity. See Wickard v. Filburn [[1942).
Under this quite incredible interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Congress has been granted carte blanche authority to regulate all local activities that have even a trivial or insignificant connection to interstate commerce. Today, the Commerce Clause is used as the mechanism to support the Constitutionality of virtually all federal drug laws, firearm laws, economic regulations, and other federal laws that are not specifically enumerated to Congress in the Constitution.
There can be no question that this gross expansion of Congressional power was not intended or anticipated by the founding fathers, including Alexander Hamilton, who otherwise supported a strong central government. Let's not forget that the 10th Amendment to Constitution was added as a safeguard to protect state sovereignty. The 10th Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. Traditionally, those powers are summed up as the state's power to "protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens."
As one can see, the federal government's intrusion into state sovereignty is one that was not intended by Constitution, nor one that should be welcomed. If it were intended, then there would have been no need to maintain individual states, but rather simply unify as one nation under one set of laws. Each state has its own identity and should be allowed to determine such issues at the local level.
To bring this full-circle, the federal government in our system as it is designed has no authority to regulate one's personal life. In fact, the Constitution EXPLICITLY FORBIDS IT as such power is RESERVED to the states under the TENTH AMENDMENT.