On Federalism - how it pertains immigration, education, prosecution / law enforcement, welfare, etc.
Fred Thompson, Potential GOP Presidential Candidate: The Framers drew their design for our Constitution from a basic understanding of human nature. From the wisdom of the ages and from fresh experience, they understood the better angels of our nature, and the less admirable qualities of human beings entrusted with power.
The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law, and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government. We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.
. . . Federalism is not an 18th century notion. Or a 19th century notion. It retains its force as a basic principle in the 21st century, because when federalism is ignored, accountability, innovation, and public confidence in government at all levels suffer. It is as true today as it ever was: the closer a government is to its people, the more responsive it is to the felt needs of its constituencies. Too often, however, state and local leaders have to answer to federal bureaucrats first and their constituents second.
. . . Beyond specific policies, what's needed are some basic rules to restrain the federal rule-makers. A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.
It is not enough to say that we are "for" federalism, because in today's world it is not always clear what that means. What we are "for" is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge – meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents – is to answer these questions together. . . . [Read More]
Tags: conservatism, conservative, Federalism, Fred Thompson, local government, presidential candidate, Republican To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law, and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government. We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.
. . . Federalism is not an 18th century notion. Or a 19th century notion. It retains its force as a basic principle in the 21st century, because when federalism is ignored, accountability, innovation, and public confidence in government at all levels suffer. It is as true today as it ever was: the closer a government is to its people, the more responsive it is to the felt needs of its constituencies. Too often, however, state and local leaders have to answer to federal bureaucrats first and their constituents second.
. . . Beyond specific policies, what's needed are some basic rules to restrain the federal rule-makers. A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.
It is not enough to say that we are "for" federalism, because in today's world it is not always clear what that means. What we are "for" is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge – meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents – is to answer these questions together. . . . [Read More]
Tags: conservatism, conservative, Federalism, Fred Thompson, local government, presidential candidate, Republican To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
8 Comments:
God bless the internet, where a candidate can speak at length. Watching the news, one cannot tell the difference between politics and a basketball game.
As for the content of the post, I couldn’t agree more.
This is a great and thoughtful piece of rightful thinking! I’ve often wondered why the Feds seem to get involved in every little thing. I believe it’s their way, whether Dim or Repub, to try to get more power for themselves. I didn’t realize Billy Boy revoked the EO on Federalism - guess he slipped that one right by the MSM! But I’m really happy Fred put this out there, and I trust he’ll carry through with the thoughts expressed here. Run, Fred, Run!!!
This is just great! This is what we are looking for, leadership. Keep it up we need this in spades.
Fred: Regan had three things he ran on, as I’m sure you’re aware.
If you make your things;
1. Secure the borders
2. Fight the war to win
3. Reduce the size of government
4. Keep taxes as low as possible
I don’t think you’ll have any problem beating the socialists.
Good luck and God bless you.
Don’t lose faith that these types of statements are “over the head” of the average voter. So many of us are sick of being talked down to, on psudo-science, and the Constitution in particular, it refreshes me to again hear a lucid and well informed commentary.
Keep us in the loop on any new developments. I for one, will do anything possible to get the West Michiagn campaign off and rolling.
Thank you for running,
Its time to bring these ideas to the public in a more “visible” nature. My suggestion would be “town meetings”. Just watched a CSpan broadcast on this quiet St. Louis evening and I can say one thing. It is time…… Mitt comes across as someone who can “manage” a country but I personally am looking for a “VISION” BUT absent that, I find myself looking for the next best thing. I can assure you that it is not a Dem……… Having said that I don’t think you can overplay your “TYPE” of message. I personally think as a true supporter that the advantages of waiting to announce are beginning to ebb. I can only hope that your ideas are out for public consumption soon….. I think they will be well recieved by a majority of people.. Your Federalism ideas are DEAD ON!!!!!!!!!
Its like, Fred Thompson would make such an awesome president.
Y’ever hear a really good pianist play a song and just hit all the right notes perfectly and masterfully, with great timing and execution.
thats Fred THompson
Brilliant Fred, simply brilliant!
It is thought provoking essays like this, that scare the hell out of the democrats.
See you on the trail, my friend!
Post a Comment
<< Home