Of course it does - that was true since day 1. That was the point of the document as the previous Confederation did not work. You can't really use the Constitution itself to argue against its very existence as inconsistent with federalism under the framers. If we use a loosey-goosey definition of federalism, we can see anything through such a prism. I mean isn't it an invasion of state power for a federal court to declare what is right and wrong? I don't see any Marbury v. Madison in the constitution do you? I dont' think it gets us anywhere though given the lack of parameters. And it's certainly not the type of thing that Perry is complaining about.
Yeah, this is nothing more than a move to appear ultra-Texan/ conservative for the primary race against Kay Bailey because if he loses any presidential ambitions are a non-starter. Expect more of these stunts over the next year.
The nature of federalism as it was enshrined in the Constitution wasn't to put the Fed though above the states. The very point of the 10th Ammendment was to provide a check on the Fed by the states. Considering the Fed practically didn't exist under the Articles of Confederation yes the Constitution did take power from the states but the size and power of the Fed as it currently is much greater than what the Framers envisioned. Federalism is loosey-goosey (is that a legal term? ) in that there aren't always bright lines. Obviously Marbury V Madison shows the USSC is capable of overrulling state courts but a the sametime the USSC recognizes there are limits and will refrain from ruling on some state court decisions. I'm not a Constitutional originalist but I do think that the Constitutional isn't as flexible as what it has been made out to be particularly when it comes to issues of Federalism. If I can throw it back to you what do you consider to be the limits of Federalism? I'm not sure exactly what Perry is complaining about other than the Federal unemployment and as I noted earlier as much as he complains about the Fed he also is willing to take Fed money and Fed help too.
Yeah it was - that was explicitly the purpose, I mean it only took 9 states to ratify it to have it go into effect. What does that tell you? I mean that's why the "Federalist" party was called the Federalist party. In many ways it's not - for example, the Federal government probably owns far fewer spitoons for congressional use than it did in 1800. And the amount of horse and buggy taxation has greatly diminished. The point is that times change. Of course it is much greater. So what? I guess you can say that "OMG WE'RE OFFENDING FEDERALISM OH NOES!" - big deal. We differ quite radically from many slave-owning, isolationist-oriented federalists in many ways. Without context I don't see the point. I don't even know what the term means in modern context. I know there's a federalist society which is mostly a right-wing law school social club/resume builder, other than that they seemed to be incredibly concerned with the Takings clause and eminent domain (which is weird as it's kind of a rarity in everyday life). I do know that we have a pretty established body of jurisprudence on separation of powers, preemption, etc that does not currently seem horribly ineffective, defunct, or moving decisively in the direction of an omnipotent federal government.
What was the purpose of having a 10th Ammendment in the first place? So you are essentially stating you have no basis to express an opinion since you don't have a clear understanding of the term. Fair enough but if you can't define your own terms regarding the limits of Federalism then it doesn't seem like you have much basis to argue where the limits of Federalism are and whether it is weaker or stronger.
Because when you very definitely subjugate the power of the states to the federal government, which was the intent of the Constitution, one needs a disclaimer in the end. Why don't you provide one for me if it's very important to you. But like i said, read my first post - I have a very clear basis on this. Your primary objection from the last decade appears to be "no child left behind" - I fail to see this as the seminal event that you do- perhapsyou can expand on its significance and why it is unprecedented and why it represents a trend, if so. Why should I explain it when the current state of it is defined by Lopez and Morrison and a host of other decisions - can't you read them yourself? The trend is going one way, very few legal scholars (and in the end that's what matters as it's a legal matter) would argue otherwise. Idiots like Perry talking about secession and morons in the park waving teabags and talking about evil Fedzilla doesn't change that.
Here's the thing: the framers weren't some monolithic bloc that all thought identically. It's hard to claim that the original founding fathers wanted a smaller government when Alexander Hamilton founded the Federal Bank in Washington's very first term. Quite obviously Washington wasn't that concerned about a huge government bureaucracy or he wouldn't have created one. Hell George Washington led armed troops against farmers who were rebelling against paying a liquor tax to a government that had yet to reimburse them for their military service during the Revolutionary War. Their argument was, in essence "I'll pay you what you claim I owe as soon as you pay me what you promised to pay me." And GW pulled out the Army to squelch it. John Adams created a set of laws in The Alien and Sedition Acts that make the overreaching of the Patriot Act look like anarchy.
