A Federal Rash

Our country used to be a federation of sovereign states. The federal constitution was a limiting document that limited the power of the federal government. This unique feature guaranteed that the people of the states could to a large degree govern themselves as they saw fit. That in it self was a tremendous expression of the freedom that the federal constitution guaranteed all citizens. If we don't like the way one state governs, then we are free to move to another that better suits us. We are a free people, governing our selves and neither beholdend nor dependent on an onerous federal government.

All that changed as the power of the federal government became apparant. Today, instead of individual, sovereign states governing, within the limits laid down by the consititution, state's governments are mostly impotent and utterly dominated by the reach of the federal government. Federal judges find meaning in the constitution that could have never been contemplated, or worse, would have been completely abhorent to the drafters of the constitution. In these imaginary meanings, the federal bench has stripped away the ability of the people of the states to govern themselves and relegated us to subserviance to the exhaulted high court. The ultimate arbitor is a group of 9 old lawyers living a protected and priviledged life in suburban Washington, DC. It is from them that all federal 'wisdom' comes.

The quesion to consider is this. Are we better off in a country as large and diverse as ours, to have questions fundamental to our way of life decided by an isolated group of jurists whose intent and goal it is to homogenize the country, or are we better off to have these questions decided by expressions of the people of the states? Are we still a free people when our law is 'dictated' to us by a collection of aging lawyers whom we neither elected nor selected, and whom we can not fire?

It is my position that if the good people of New Jersey believe and pass a law to the effect that abortion is ok, that is their right. I also believe that if the Pennslyvania believe that abortion is wrong, it is their right to ban it. That's a state level decision. It's not a federal question, it's a recognition that the people of different states have different positions on difficult questions.

While the court has found 'rights' somehow written between the lines of the constitution, it somehow has missed this clear construct. Where do you stand on it? Are your rights and your states right's originating from the all knowing, all seeing federal court, or is your sovereignity vested you? Are you ruled, or do you consent to being governed?

If you are thinking that the federal courts should not be legislating, nor governing from the bench, congradulations. You and Sara Palin are on the same page. Tina Fey might be able to see Russia from her house, but Sara Palin understands the constitution.