August 9, 2022

The Huge Double Standard Behind the Idea that the Federal Government Can Hit Down State and Nearby Laws

The idea began like a novel concept in the nineteenth century when federal policymakers began to use it as a tool of asserting federal control of states.

For more than the usual century, the process of political centralization and state building in the United States has entailed convincing a huge portion of the population that the federal government must be the final arbiter of the moral righteousness of every legislation and policy adopted in every state.

The idea began like a novel concept in the nineteenth century when federal policymakers began to use it as a device of asserting federal control of states. If federal establishments regard a state policy as conforming to federal notions of “ rights, ” then the policy is allowed to stand. If, not, then the federal government deems the law to become null and void. This particular negation of state and local policies, of course , is certainly backed with real or even threatened coercive force used by federal institutions. These days, the idea that federal courts are now able to declare any state legislation to be “ unconstitutional” is accepted without question with the overwhelming majority of Americans.  

Moreover, the idea permeates all corners from the political spectrum, so that conservatives and progressives alike can routinely be heard contacting for the federal government to step in and overturn local laws by force when these local laws are not to the liking of activists. The particular Left, of course , has lengthy called for federal intervention in most state and local government as a result of the local school board. Through this process, for example , even college prayer at a high school sports activities game has been turned into analysis issue. Conservatives, meanwhile, demand that the federal government void condition and local gun laws where conservatives regard these types of laws as overly limited.  

This really is even a common notion amongst self-described libertarians, many of who insist that it is entirely proper for one government— i. e., the federal government— in order to impose certain laws upon another government— i. e., the state and local government authorities.  

Amongst all advocates of this sort of thing, whether progressive, conventional, or libertarian, it is validated on the grounds that federal government intervention must be allowed to “ protect rights. ” Furthermore, the federal government’s treatment is to be carried out in accordance with the particular federal government’s  model   of exactly what those rights are.  

As I have noted in the past,   this is a form of imperialism and it is certainly nothing new, book, or unique to Us citizens .   Imperialists of most stripes have long validated their interventions on the environment that their actions are necessary to enforce the protection of human rights, spread civilization, or otherwise perform several service to humanity. This really is deemed “ necessary” since the people in the colonies,   however defined, cannot be reliable with self-government, and therefore should submit to the enlightened principle of outsiders who  can   end up being trusted with properly safeguarding rights and civilization.  

Indeed, justifying this sort of relationship between the government and the state governments in the US is central to the US’s regime ideology. This is shown in the regime’s written cosmetic which is regularly invoked to get a patina of legitimacy to the central state’s claims.     This ideology is essential in maintaining the fiction that it can be necessary  that state plus local laws are subject to veto by the federal government, as the federal government is absolutely sovereign, and its laws and policies are not subject to veto by any institution outside the federal government itself.  

“ Democracy” Works for the Federal Government, but Not the State plus Local Governments?

Among most People in america, it is assumed that unless the us government can evaluate, affirm or even strike down state plus local laws, these state and local institutions will never properly protect rights. Implied in this equation, however , would be that the federal government does   not   require any similar sort of outdoors oversight itself. Why this is actually the case is never quite clear, especially since state governments are remarkably similar to the federal government in terms of structure plus institutions.  

For example , all state governments in the US are republican government authorities with regular elections, legislatures, courts, and many so-called checks and balances of their own. Most state constitutions contain their own bills of rights, and employ state supreme courts that evaluate state plus local laws in light of such legal rights. In other words, each local government contains all the hallmarks of what the elites tell us is “ democracy. ”  

For whatever reason, although, these institutions are considered to be unreliable in protecting rights and are— within the parlance of US elites— not really sufficiently democratic. The “ fix, ” therefore , would be to subject all state laws and regulations and policies to a federal veto through the courts or through federal legislation that will supersedes state law. Federal government intervention, we are told, is necessary as a backstop to prevent  abuse by state plus local officials.  

At the federal level, however , it is presumed that institutions, for whatever reason,   do  work well sufficient to protect rights and are adequately democratic.   That is, even though the federal government is virtually identical to state governments in structure and institutional make-up, will not require some outside backstop to ensure the federal government does not abuse its power. While state institutions fail in their mission, federal elections, legislatures, and courts  are   assumed to be every sufficient to protect rights. Quite simply, “ democracy” works only at the federal level, and only at the federal level.

Why do federal government institutions function to protect rights while state and local institutions are insufficient to do so? This is never explained, and how could it be? The distinction is certainly purely arbitrary and depending on nothing more than the mere  assertion  that only state and local governments— but not the national government— require outside intervention to ensure rights are respected. It will be equally rigorous to deal that federal institutions are fundamentally different from state plus local institutions in this way because of magic spells and pixie dust.  

The Federal Government Is the Sole Judge of  Its Own Laws.  

Or put another way, the particular centralist ideology at work here contends state and county are not sovereign, but the federal government is  fully   sovereign. For an example of this sovereignty, we need look no further than the fact that virtually no one in the regime has seriously attempted to subject US laws in order to evaluation by judges on the United Nations or any other international organization. (To do so would certainly at least be consistent with the concept a government’s law needs to be subject to review by some “ higher” level of authorities. )  Not that the concept is never mentioned. For instance , some pro-abortion interest groupings have claimed that declares which outlaw abortion  do so in violation of international law . Arguably, then, if the federal government would be to affirm such laws, the united states ought to be subject to outside treatment in the name of forcing compliance with international human rights protections.  

People who suggest such a thing may meet with little success in america, of course. Most Americans— actually among the elites— insist that will “ outsiders” ought not have to get judges of another jurisdiction’s laws, and that only United states institutions get to decide exactly what laws shall be enforced inside US borders. French, British, or Italian judges should not be allowed any say about what laws are enforced or adopted within the United States. But note this exact same logic is not applied to the supposedly “ sovereign” member declares in the United States. We’re to believe it will be outrageous for people living a large number of miles away to rule on US laws, it really is nonetheless deemed perfectly suitable for federal politicians or even judges in Washington DC to themselves dictate exactly what laws or policies are permissible thousands of miles aside in Idaho or Ak.   In other words, the government government— and the federal government  alone — is the sole judge from the own laws and insurance policies.  

Again, the distinction here is solely arbitrary, and relies on convenient fictions such as claims that the farmer in Idaho and a lawyer at the Supreme Courtroom are “ all Americans” and thus the former must post to the political power of the latter. These pretensions towards American solidarity only apply in one direction, of course , and so are never employed to actually  limit   federal power. Such concepts endure, however , because they comply with the ideological whims of these who successfully mold plus propagate public opinion.

Demonic Proportions and the Mysteries of CERN

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *