[Cons] Article I, Section 8 - Federal vs Local (1 of 3)

There are a lot of things I can put in this section...so I'm going to post a lot of things.  Three separate posts with several months of thought, but I think I'll begin on the Federal vs Local control question.  Why here? Because I believe that the list of powers assigned to the US Federal Congress in this section might seem specific, but I argue that they're rather arbitrary.  Right now the United Kingdom is doing some soul searching as the last vestiges of  empire are falling away and Scotland is chomping at the bit to leave, with Wales not soon after.  Thus, England is studying ways to restore powers to the local government whilst retaining some powers at the national level.  Also, in the Ukraine, the world is brought to a precipice because the Russian speaking Crimean region of the Ukraine wants to separate from the rest of the country.  Right now, it is autonomous, but it no longer trusts the nationalist government to let it retain these powers, so Putn Rasputin has seized it by force.  

Why do it this way?  Why not let regions be autonomous when at all possible, deciding which leagues they'd rather be affiliated with, and also; which powers they grant to their larger regional bodies.  If people could simply choose over time what they wanted, then this would be a lot easier.  Which makes the federal vs local question very much about a legislature.

I am above all other things, a pragmatist, despite how much of an idealog or a fanatic I might seem.  I believe in striving for the best we can do, but working with what we have in the meantime.  In as such, it strikes me that as much as a direct democratic democracy with timelocks might be desirable, we're likely to have legislatures for some time to come.  After all, even Switzerland has them, right? And they're the most democratic country on Earth.

So if we're going to have a legislature, and if we're going to periodically reboot the constitution to avoid Temporal Tyranny, then we need to reboot the constitution at least once every two or three generations.  So if we do, and if we're going to have legislatures, then the question becomes, what powers are going to be ascribed to the league/federation/national level, vs those retained by the locals.  I'm sure there are as many opinions on that as there are people reading this, and likely a million more times that.  But the question is left for the people determining their constitution, because each generation, nation and culture has their own ideas of what that might be.

So like the other elements of the constitutional posts I've made, I want to explore different options of accomplishing this.

I think the first thing is that in any constitution, there has to be a set of guarantees in the frame work for both sides; ie things that never change.  I'd argue that the federal government must always have the power to tax and the power to raise an army.  Otherwise, you end up with a confederation, and confederations suck; there is a reason the EU and the CSA had as many problems as they did.  The truth is, that generally, the advantage of scale on any policy at the federal national level is going to be pronounced, no matter what it is, but the diversity of experimentation and the ability to actually know your politicians and make greater changes takes place at the local.  Since government is force, any government must have some ability to enforce whatever laws it passes.  And to have a law enforcement agency, it must be able to tax.  The same also applies at a local level.  Beyond that, I argue, Education, Health, Science, Law Enforcement, etc should all be decided by constitutional delegates in any cycle but ideally, you could divide up a minimum framework for each.  Let's take a look at a few.

Note: I'm not going to look at the 'no local' or 'no federal' options because quite frankly, I think that all those choices are bad ones.  There might be situations where they're a good idea, but I'll be damned if I can think of them.

Weak Local/Weak Federal: An anarchist's dream, the federal and the local just have only the bare minimum powers necessary and the government is literally prohibited from legislating ANYTHING not expressly allowed them on either level.  This has lots of problems, but I think the big ones are; no social justice, no counter to business running rampant, no flexibility in emergency especially with an insane conservative minority and more importantly, weak government does not equal small government.  I'll cover that in another post.  Its strengths? Well, corruption would likely be less, taxes would likely be less, so for the 1% it would be heaven, and libertarians would finally be happy I guess.

Weak Local/Medium Federal: In this system the federal government gets 60-70% of governmental duties whilst local governments only get the remaining amount.  There are still limits on the federal government and the local government, but the federal government is definitely stronger than the local governments.  I think this is a good set up, not the best, but it has advantages.  It means that there is never any doubt about who is in charge (ie no civil wars), you get economy of scale on all the things the national government does, and you still get some local control.

Weak Local/Strong Federal: This is the UK, where you have a strong parliament and almost no local controls.  As I mentioned, the UK is looking at transferring power back to local governments.  You do get all kinds of neat advantages at a strong federal level (as is illustrated in the UK with all their social benefits) but you'll end up with a capital that reserves all the powers to itself and doesn't care about the regional provinces.  You think 'inside the beltway thinking' is bad now? Try it under this scenario.  Pass.

Medium Local/Weak Federal: So this the goal the founding fathers were aiming for in the constitution (as compared to Strong Local and Weak Federal or Weak Local and Weak Federal espoused by Libertarians.)  It has a lot of advantages in that it still gives you enough government to do things, leads to lots of interesting experiments and doing things, whilst still having some of the advantages of united government such as defense and standardization etc.  This is a functional government, especially if you reserve say...40% of the powers to the local governments and 20% to the federal, while flat out denying 40% or simply letting them be picked up piece meal as needed in emergencies.  This government is not as prone to corruption in the old days but would still fare poorly against a Koch/Alec style take over or corporate/robber baron corruption.  It is also a problem waiting to happen because a civil war is likely to result on any major issue dividing the local governments that is of sufficient passion.  This would be a bad idea among all reality based inhabitants but with conservatives or divergent realities it would be a disaster.  In short, it is probably the best of all possible worlds up until the industrial era, and then it likely isn't going to work at all.

Medium Local/Strong Federal: This is what we have now.  It's workable, but it has problems.  To begin with, a government that does everything for its citizens will always be expanding.  Also a strong federal government, specifically a strong federal legislature, has all of the problems I've mentioned before, primarily that it still focuses power into the hands of a few who can be bribed and corrupted with a little to much ease.  More importantly, a strong federal legislature might ignore its citizens entirely.  It has LOTS of advantages though as manifest by our powerful GNP.  A strong federal government checked by a plurality of states allows a dynamic ebb and flow which creates the most critical path of functionality.  It allows for strong federal agencies and strong state agencies whilst still ensuring the dominance of the federal government.

Strong Local/Strong Federal: Just like the last version, but very little restricted.  I envision this scenario as one in which there are many specific spheres of influence between the regional government and the federal government, so they they theoretically check each other, but no restrictions on what they can do beyond that.  Thus in this scenario, even if you have a bill of rights, it's 'optional in emergency' like the UK.  That is to say, the parliament in the UK is paramount and can do what it likes.  So a system like this would have local and federal governments with essentially unlimited powers in their respective spheres. The parliament in the UK still allows for a lot of freedoms and the inhabitants of the UK certainly believe those freedoms are inviolate.  The trick is, this is the strongest case of the classic libertarian argument about a government only growing larger, never smaller; after all if both local and federal governments are strong, each crisis will lead to the creation of another agency or another law, and there is likely no mechanism to remove it once in place.  Civil war isn't as likely because if both are strong, then they can theoretically check each other but might do so at the cost of the citizens.  So there are advantages, and its theoretically workable but hardly what I'd call desirable.

Strong Local/Weak Federal: OK, this doesn't HAVE to be a confederation, even though it pretty much sounds like one.  Maybe we'll call this a weak federation?  IE for example a scenario in which the federal government is still paramount but only has 20% of potential duties whilst the local governments have 60%, still leaving certain areas to them that are forbidden form access.  This form of government to me has all of the problems of Medium Local/Strong Federal, but also exacerbated difficulties when you have strong local governments that might try to claw back authority from the federal government.  Even assuming they could do this (and it is possible I believe) it lose a lot of the advantages of the economies of scale.  Still, I think in a truly flexible system, there are likely some cycles where the locals will choose to do this in their society, even if they are likely to change it in the next.  A framework to allow local and federal control must allow this, even if I think they'll find that ultimately they don't like it.

Strong Local/Medium Federal: I can see this happening, but I do admit I'm not sure what it would look like.  But again, I picture this happening at times on the cycle of things but having this much government control is probably going to cause government over reach.

Medium Local/Medium Federal: It might seem as if I have contrived things to show this, but I honestly believe this to be the best of all possible worlds.  A third of all potential functions controlled by local governments, a third by federal governments and a third that they can't touch.  And I think that each set of generations should get to decide for themselves what these things might be.  Yes, there will be abuses, but I argue the abuses of not allowing folks to determine these themselves would be worse, much worse.

More to come.

[Phil] When you're the only game in town

You make the rules. There is no republican party. There are certainly no Republican values, and even the moderates admit they have no party to turn to... Or do they? Remember folks we live in the 2nd Gilded Age. Money talks. Obama is a sitting president, looking to eventually retire. And there is a lot of money to be made as an ex president. Hilary Clinton is pretty much seen as the inevitable 2016 nominee, only this time it really seems inevitable. The country is unlikely to vote for anything the Republicans are shoveling. Oh sure, Reagen Reality inhabitants are all gung ho, but as many flaws as she has, Mrs. Clinton is infinitely better, and staying home got us Bush II twice... BUT, when you've got 6 years, likely 10 years of almost inevitable power in the bag, why not make some cash? Net Neutrality is dead, and the telecom companies are going to fleece you for all you're worth. And President Obama isn't going to do a thing about it. Why should they? You don't pay as much as Comcast does. Does that mean you should give up and die? No, of course not. There are things you can do, and there are people mobilizing to do something about it, just understand that it is going to take time and a lot of hard work. But it will be worth it, so you can watch what you want without paying two or three day's pay for it.

[Phil] "We Live In A Republic Vs A Democracy"

What They Mean: Absolute rule by the majority is bad, and that it is OK if a minority rules on some issues since the majority wins over time, and federalism is important.

What I Hear: We are just fine by minority rule as long as it serves our purposes.

What They Really Really Mean: Back in the old days, voters were only rich, white men who owned property, and even though most of us aren't racist, so the white part isn't critical (but we're not really shouting down our allies who might be racist unless really really obvious about it) the 'rich' and 'property owning' is key, because poor people are like that because God made them that way and they're lazy scum sucking pigs sucking on the teat of the federal government.

Note: These same people immediately believe in the virtues of a democratic majority when they believe they're in the majority.  "That's undemocratic" will drip from their lips at the drop of a hat, its just you rarely hear it from the elites because they're become more and more in the permanent minority and needing to use parliamentary tricks or gerrymandering to get their way and show no signs of changing their view point in the near future.

Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except all of the others."  Parliaments are not Republics even though they have Republican elements.  Technically speaking, it depends on what you're talking about when you mean "Republic" because we are most certainly a Democratic Republic.

A Republic in its purest form is defined by the dictionary as: : "a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen"

The key there is elected and not a king.

So...we don't have a king.  So do most countries in the world.  Hell, even Switzerland which has direct votes on almost everything has legislators.  So really?  "Republic not a democracy" is BULLSHIT and is a dog whistle saying what I meant above.

We are a republic alright, but we have determined that our legislators are elected democratically, which means that the basis of sovereignty in our nation says, "WE THE PEOPLE" **NOT** "WE THE STATES"...the ratification of the constitution was conducted at large by the people, by state, but it was a popular election.

Moreover, the idea that there is not a 'right to vote' is ridiculous on my levels:

The 10th Amendment says there are many rights not explicitly spoken here, reserved to the states.

Numerous amendments expand the voting franchise.  If you define things the government cannot restrict as a right (and my view of a right is much broader, just going by conservative/libertarian insane definitions) then by DEFINITION if the government cannot pass laws forbidding folks from voting based on parameters in the constitution It's a RIGHT.

Voting is a right.  It is certainly a right as defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights which has more legitimacy than a document enshrined by Conservatives.  The Constitution is a wonder, and was a wonder for its time but the truth is, that now that it is used by frauds, liars, cheats and scoundrels as a shield the most inappropriate behavior, I cannot help but think that the time has come to replace it.

As I have mentioned ad nasuem numerous times.

[News] The Time Has Come To Suspend Turkey From NATO

The United Nations, the OAS and the EU are all attempts at regional harmony, and represent geographical interests coming together.  All of these bodies pay lip service toward democracy, but all of them routinely behave in undemocratic fashions, though the EU dramatically less so.  The UN was little more than a paper tiger during the cold war and has placed all real power in the hands of five nations that were on the right side of WWII.  The idea that Russia has a permanent vote but Japan, Germany, Brazil and India do not is laughable.  The OAS did nothing to suspend Venezuela during Chavez or dictators before that; only, and quite hypocritically, Cuba.  Even the EU has had issues disciplining its own members when Austria started to go the direction of Right Wing Fasicm....something the EU was set up explicitely to protect them against.

NATO is different.  NATO was set up as a check against the iron curtain and the soviet block.  NATO is an alliance of democracies, any one of which can stop the actions of the others by a simple veto, which seems insane from a policy point but somehow it worked and terrified (and still terrifies) the Kremlin.

And now along comes the tin pot tyrant Edrogan.  He started out well enough...a moderate Islamist, who helped the democratic nature of his country by stopping the Deep State and improving the economy.  But over time, we  have learned the deep skeletons in Edrogan's closet.  We have learned of the intimidation of journalists.  We have learned of corruption and then a mass purge of judges and the police as a result.

But now we see Edrogan trying to steal the internet.  Edrogan is a tyrant. Edrogan proves that there is no such thing as a MODERATE islamist, just as there is no such thing as a moderate nationalist christianist, hinduist or any other religion.  ANY other religion.  A theocracy is a theocracy, not a democracy.

While Edrogan rules with tyrants powers in Turkey, Turkey has no place in NATO and it should move to expunge him immediately.

That will set a precedent to do the same thing when our own Deep State tries to imprison our journalists as "accomplices" to whistleblowing and exposing the truth; tears away net neutrality in the interests of telecoms, and rigs the election with an 'inevitable' neoliberal vs a tea party psyhcopath as a choice.

When that happens to us, *WE* should be suspended from NATO as well.

Someone is Blocking an Interview w. Snowden in the US

And given what we have seen from US authorities on this issue, one has to wonder if it was them.

More details here.

[Phil] TMZ and the use of scandal by the Fascist Right and the Deep State

Let us say that, hypothetically the NSA, CIA and other agencies of the deep state of the American Empire are using evidence of scandal to get law makers to vote in their favor.

What evidence might we have of this?

Well...we know that John Clapper, National Director of Intelligence, lied to congress and has yet to be prosecuted.

We know that the NSA and Obama administration went to extraordinary lengths to get Edward Snowden, even at the potential cost of severe damage to its diplomatic relations.

We know that while there is call for reform in the congress, the intelligence committees have all defended these questionable programs, even though we know they are blatantly illegal.

We live in a scandal culture, where sex sells.  Destroying celebrities is a billion dollar business.  We love to see the powerful fall.  News of Justin Beiber and Britney Spears slags across the screens and we egg them on.

Leaving aside the disgusting things this says about our society, when you spread gossip about politicians and celebrities that isn't about actually EVIL behavior but that is merely scandalous, you increase the leverage that those in power, who monitor everything we do, can use to blackmail politicians.

There will always be scandal, but there are degrees.  In France, for example, it took a long time for politicians to fall due to sex scandals.  Also remember that Scandal Journalism is popular with Ruprect Murdoch and other right wing rags.

When you spread celebrity gossip, you empower the NSA's ability to blackmail.  So maybe you can't join Occupy.  Maybe you don't believe your vote matters.

Maybe it doesn't.

But you can stop contributing to the problem.  Stop spreading or talking about celebrity gossip. You can't stop it, but you can stop making it worse.

The Jefferson Memorial

We finally got to go.    It was a walk away from the mall, round near the frozen lake.  It was a gorgeous marble set of pillars with a giant statue of one of the founders of this country.  A good man though flawed, but on the aggregate good and holy.

Here are the quotes that line the memorial:

"Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan."

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. We...solemnly publish and declare, that these colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states...And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

..I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.