Amen!

"The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there." Finally! I'm seeing somebody with real knowledge of the Constitution write what I've believed for a long time. Why am I not seeing more conservatives make these points?

Oh, H*** No!

Commenting on the theme by Neal Peirce in my previous post, George Mason's Bob Nelson manages to forget an explicit Constitutional protection in this post: "Is the U.S. Senate Obsolete?".

As far as I can tell, he's annoyed that small-population, rural states get the same representation in the U.S. Senate as, say California and other overgrown states. I appreciate that the Federal government has wildly overstepped its Constitutional powers all across the board, but it's not only the Senate's fault, and that's the one place we small states can defend ourselves from the bullying of big states.

That's why the Constitution has a single provision which can never be amended away: the equal representation of states in the Senate.

Should we get rid of that? Insert my post title here.

UPDATE: Of course, I'm asking rhetorically. It's not even possible to get rid of that!

Arrogant City Slicker Watch

Exhibit A. Neal Peirce, of the Washington Post Writers Group. He asks, "Are States Obsolete?" and shows a profound ignorance of the governmental origins of the United States. He seems to think (this appears to lie behind his thinking--it's not stated explicitly) that the Federal government created the states (the original 13 as well as the rest), and thus that the borders are arbitrary subdivisions of a single government. Recall, of course, that the thirteen sovereign states (countries) after the Revolution created the Federal government between them. They're pre-existent and are Constitutionally the default loci of sovereign power. Only those powers the states have voluntarily ceded to the Federal government can be exercised by it.

Beyond that, he writes, states' problems arise from the excessive influence of rural lawmakers in their general assemblies. Oh, if only we could have a heavier hand of the urbanites at work in our capitals!

Ugh! I'd place this also in my Damn Yankee file, but I don't know for sure if he is or not. Ignorant city slicker, for sure.

Read the Citystates Group website's mission, posted here:

Our mission… to reflect a new American narrative. From a 20th century of cheap energy, endless automobility, burgeoning suburbs, threatened cities. To a challenge-packed 21st century: fast-rising energy costs, perilous carbon emissions, deepening have-have not divisions. But a time of exciting promise, too: rejuvenated cities, new citistate-wide consciousness, more protected lands, the most urban rail starts in a century. Citiwire.net’s quest: to chronicle struggles, illuminate pathways to more vibrant, equitable, sustainable choices for grassroots America and citistates worldwide.

Uh-huh.

Is getting the state out of marriage a good idea?

Nope, says Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse in The Public Discourse. (Link via Maggie Gallagher at The Corner) I've been reading about this idea on some libertarian blogs; they're naturally more amenable to the idea. But Dr. Morse points out how, even on libertarian standards, it would likely make things worse.

From a conservative standpoint, there's the obvious objection that it would overturn what is certainly hundreds (longer?) of years' worth of custom in a very short time. That's a radical change for causes that may themselves change in a few decades.