Resurrect The Republic

[dairygirl4u2c]

in addition, in order to make ron paul not ineffective, democrats should not be voted for, often. each congressman should be looked at in general, but they are not cooperating with things like privatizing SS and reforming welfare medicad medicare and they are pushing for even more spending and waste through natinoalized insurance. at the very time they should not they are pushing for insurance nationally...

i'm a populist for the most part, but i htink most republicans are not hardlineers and would allow some support for the down trodden, without casting all aid as only to be taken care of by charity.

[Aloysius]

I'm not sure how effective Ron Paul could be with either side at the helm of the Congress. The Powers that Be would not like him one bit. He could reshape the executive branch, and veto budgets that spent too much, even maybe sign some executive orders abolishing some branches of the federal government

Like I said, you have to be worthy of being an Empire to deserve to be one. Why are we an empire? An immoral economic system has created that situation. Do we deserve to be an empire? No. Therefore, follow the Constitutional prohibition against us having centralized power or an empire and return to the state-based-model, leaving the federal government's task only that which is proper to the federal government: unity between the states and foreign policy.

Leo XIII did not believe in centralized power. Following in the footsteps of Pius IX, Catholic Social Justice has always fought against the centralization of power in nation states beyond the legitimate bounds of what is necessary to be done by central powers.

The Holy Roman Empire deserved to be an empire, for one part. The reason for the Holy Roman Empire to be an empire, though? Not so that some guy in Austria could decide what the dress code was in some far corner of the empire (random extreme example, but apply that to any law that could effectively be accomplished at the local level); but to have a united Europe in the face of foreign powers, to keep peace amongs all the members of that united empire.

Micro-managing empires are always and everywhere to be considered immoral and contrary to the dignity of man; for it makes a man subject to powers too far beyond his reach for him to have any fair treatment. Centralized power is only permissable to accomplish things which cannot be done effectively at local levels, and sometimes to bring local levels into line with moral order (such as making certain all forms of murder are illegal if and when some local government decides that murder should not be illegal)

if local governments are illegalizing murder in a perfectly competant way, however, there is no need for any larger centralized authority to illegalize murder. it is only if some locality decides to make murder legal that a centralized authority has to intervene.

this is considered the justification of the Civil War. Okay, I could buy that, if all we had done was free the slaves and then gave all states back their competant authority. But we didn't do that, we strengthened the Federal Government not only to end a moral problem, but then also over things which were not in the Federal Government's proper competancy.

(and I assume we all know I was talking about abortion up there, as there are not many places left in the world which would actually permit murder at any level of power)

Anyway, I'm a big fan of Leo XIII, I know all about his condemnation of the "heresy of Americanism", and that does not condemn America nor federalism in the slightest. You're going to need some quotes to back up your outlandish claim that Leo XIII would support America having a powerful centralized federal government.

What subsidarity is all about is proper competancy. If an issue is the proper competancy of a local authority, then no centralized power has competant authority to overrule that local authority.

and to Dairy, this goes much deeper than "government or charity" as regards theoretical models of government. it's really "federal government or state government".. and then "state government or local government"... the idea would be to de-construct all the federal aid programs and divide them up to be managed by the state governments. then it's a matter of the state government's deciding how much the more local governments can competantly deal with their own issues. It would only be at the level of local government that the question would arise on whether to leave this or that type of aid up to a charity or deal with it through the government.

[son_of_angels]

I do not intend to support my claim that Leo XIII would support centralized federal power. On the contrary, I would argue that the problem is that we have a federal system, and that a Constitutionalist federal system no more preserves subsidiarity than elections preserve virtue.

Subsidiarity can be applied by a government which has greater power, and seeks to overturn in-between governments, like the hopelessly populist state governments in this country (training grounds for the pork-driven US Senate) who coddle the American people, because subsidiarity is a virtue, not an institution. It means that someone who does have the power to act DOES NOT act when someone with better knowledge and judgment can make the decision instead. However, subsidiarity becomes a democratic appeal to bureaucracy and corruption when, instead of ensuring that the lesser powers are in fact just and knowledgeable you instead appeal to these homespun governments in order to make one's own play for power: by pretending to be in favor of the people's own creation. Someone who appeals to federalism is not appealing so much to the Constitution as to the ignorance of the American people.
Again, federalism is NOT equivalent to subsidiarity it is a mockery of it.

As for "deserving to be an Empire," this is ridiculous. Charlemagne did not deserve to have an empire, he deserved to protect Rome and Europe. This does not necessarily grant him license to create his own regime over other national entities. He was PRIVILEGED to gain an Empire, as has been this United States, who has no more deserved to govern the Western Hemisphere than any other nation, nay, even less than other nations, but has instead been privileged to do so, as in the matter of the Middle East. Indeed, I can think of no person who has, by nature, the right to rule over such a large expanse as the President of this nation already does, but, because we have endured and avoided what has ensnared most nations, the privilege belongs to us.

What needs to happen first, of course, is the advancement of this nation in virtue and morality. This can and must be the goal of the federal government. It begins with right-headed foreign policy, and ends with Constitutional revision.

[dairygirl4u2c]

granted it's not federal government the issue, at least the only issue.
it's charity v. the principle of subsidiarity. some issues demand charity, other issues demand government intervention. some issues demand local government control, others demand federal control.
issues that cause states to compete at the expense of the downtrodden are prone to requiring federal intervention. there's many issues one could cite. i'm big on the minimum wage, and i guess i'd point to environmental regs too. companies are known for switching when things get hard, switching states. uniformity of laws prevent that.
but it does go beyond competion. such as states that do not want to punish rapists. (this is mroe historical than anything) and the feds need involved.

generally though, subsidiary is the best. that's why ron paul is good. as long as he's not taken to the extreme. he'd have to learn to compromise, at least a little if he's going to be president. that's always the question, how and when to compromise. comprise is the moral solution, after all, at least sometimes, if not many or most times.

[Aloysius]

This is where you and I diverge: I say that subsidarity ought to be institutional. That when larger centralized governments are formed, they should not hold power over things which belong to the lower authorities. That a Federal Government should not have authority over the basic laws of a locality. That any extended centralized power, be it a Federal Government, an Empire, a European Union, or a United Nations, ought not to have any more power than the power to do that which cannot competantly be done by smaller local governments. If a smaller/local government illustrates its incompetance at doing something, then the larger government may step in and interfere, not as one who normally holds authority over that thing, but as one who is the only competant authority which can restore moral order.

Since when is subsidarity a virtue? It's a principal of good governance, a principal of social justice. Principals ought to be applied, not just by the individual decisions of rulers, but by the framework of states.

"deserve to be an empire" was simply my poetic way of combining "acheived empire status through noble means" and "had a model of empire which was acceptable from a Catholic point of view" ie, the purpose of their empire was merely to accomplish things which needed to be accomplished but could not be accomplished by individual state governments.

dairy, Ron Paul will certainly compromise on various issues where he sees fit I'm sure; however, he will not compromise in ways people will like. He'll follow the axiom "if I'm not authorized by the constitution to do it, I will not do it" and "if the congress is not authorized by the constitution to do it, I'll veto it" and "if this federal program is not authorized by the constitution, I'll abolish it". It's one thing to ask for various policy compromises, it's quite another thing simply thinking about the model of government and the role of the presidency. He will carry out the role of the presidency that he sees the constitution as defining. How can a president compromise the role of the presidency in any way? Could he really say "okay, I'll do this one unconstitutional thing to make you happy"? no, he really couldn't, because as far as he's concerned, that'd be breaking the highest law of the land.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"incapable of doing it" is my standard too. if states do not make rape laws, then the feds should step in, if they have constitutional power. i know the USSC had before repealed such a fed rape law, as it was before the later amendemnts
you prob mean more than i do, in so far as incaple of doing it means they simply can't at all, not that they won't or whatever.

btw, there's much interpretation to the contution. two main points that allow flexibility in my mind in interpreting. the first and primary is that the states are represented when they are making a law or acting through their representative in fed gov. second, the constituion is not an encylcopedia, and if you see something, like "commerce" for example, i don't think you shold expect clear delineations of what that means. so, tehse are reasons i'd defer to fed power before getting gung ho abotu repealing a law that the country decided to make.
of course, whether somethings constitional or not, and whether they should do it or not is two different things as i'm sure you know. but it's worth mentioning.

Edited October 2, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

maybe i should change my words, cause incapable means more like what it does to you than it does to me.
i don't think the defintion of subsidiarity includes "incapable" it's more vague, i think.

maybe i shouldn't even try to squeeze subsidiarity to fit my outlook. maybe i should just say there are exceptions to it.

Edited October 2, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm sure the catho church wouldn't be for allow states rights in abortion. just an example to show that there may be times fed power is warranted.
whether it's constitiuoanal again is a diff question.

[Aloysius]

the word I used was "competant", I think it's an accurate word. when a state proves itself incompetant to do something, then the federal government should pressure them into doing it or enforce it themselves if absolutely necessary.

subsidarity can apply all the way down to the lowest levels, and I like to bring it down to the lowest to really prove points. the family is ordinarily competant at governing itself; disciplining and teaching the children and such. if a family proves itself incompetant (the standards are debateable, Germany thinks you're incompetant if you simply disagree with the national governrment, that's wrong) to educate its children, or incompetant at raising them by abusing them, then the local government should step in and do something about it; whenever possible, that something should be an attempt to re-establish the good order whereby the family is able to competantly govern itself. in a worst case scenaria, the government must usurp the authority of the parental governors; but even then, only so that they can send the children to another family which is competant. The state never takes over the role, the state never becomes the family.

same with the federal government. there are means to intervene when states are incompetant at doing things (standards are debateable, current federal idealogy considers any state who wouldn't have its drinking age at 21 incompetant at dealing with alcohol, that's wrong) but that doesn't mean that the federal government should ever assume the role of a state government (at least not permanently, in extreme cases it can do so temporarily to restore moral order, like a state removing a child from a family only to re-establish it in another family, or re-establish the original family if necessary)

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1396790' date='Oct 2 2007, 08:46 PM']i'm sure the catho church wouldn't be for allow states rights in abortion. just an example to show that there may be times fed power is warranted.
whether it's constitiuoanal again is a diff question.[/quote]
A Catholic who believed in the Constitution could legitimately hold that every state ought to be given the chance to illegalize abortion, and that every state ought to illegalize abortion. If a state proved incompetant at illegalizing abortion, then the federal government would become the competant authority to restore moral order in that state, but the ideal situation would have the states all having their own anti-murder law and their own anti-abortion law.

Personally, that's what I would support; I would also support a federal ban on it being a pragmatist and realizing the current structure of our government and the fact that it would be necessary to make it a nation-wide ban to restore order in the few states (and there are not many, they're just the more densely populated ones) who would refuse to illegalize abortion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think the child rearing incapability, abuse, is troubling.
it's similar to the idea that abortion is okay in the states. it just can't be allowed and must be intervened.
if you take subsidiary as a straight and narrow rule, to its logical conclusion, then tehse things even child rearing cannot be infringed upon.
if you look at minimum wage etc as similar to child rearing, then it's not so bad i'm sure.
in my scenario, i wouldn't say the feds should intervene when they think people shouldn't like the dallas cowboys. a little far fetched, but my point is that there is much rightful discretion.
if we disagree with what is essential things, then that's that.

Edited October 3, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

I'm not sure you understood my post. I laid out how and why a larger government should interfere in a matter normally dealt with at a lower level. when that lower level is incompetant to establish moral order, then the larger government interferes. but that doesn't mean the larger government takes permanent control over that particular issue in every lower government.

if New York fails to illegalize abortion, but every other state does, then the Federal Government needs to interfere with New York matters in order to establish moral order.

if a family fails to educate their children, but every other family educates them well, then the local or State Government needs to interfere with that one family and leave the other families alone. (I'm not saying not to offer public education, don't want to get into that whole debate, I'm just dealing with if/when a family decides not to choose that public education)

if a local government fails to protect the rights of those who work in its territory and they are not receiving adequat pay, then the state government should interfere. but not with a state-wide minimum wage (it's outside of the competancy of any larger government to deal with everyone in such broad terms); but by re-establishing order in that one locality by dealing with the unions and the managements and stuff... but only if the local government (which in this system would have much more power than it does now) fails to do so.

so the issue of minimum wage is entirely transformed. it's not "should the Federal government issue a minimum wage or leave it alone?"... it's "if a locality has poor wage conditions, it should be dealt with by its unions/magagements first, next (if they are incompetant to solve the problem) by its local government, next (if the local government is incompetant to solve that problem) by the state government, next (if the state cannot solve that problem) by the federal government. Nowhere in that process does a state government say "We're going to make a generalized law for every county" or does a federal government say "we're going to make a generalized law for every state" or, God forbid, does an international government say "we're going to make a generalized law for every nation"... they simply lose competancy to deal with the issue.

this would authorize local governments to issue minimum wages, of course. and states would have the competancy to deal directly with businesses who act all over their state, and the federal government the competancy to deal with nation-wide and international companies. if a state thought that a state-wide company was being unfair to one of its counties, that's a matter for the state to resolve.

by competancy, I do not mean capability. competancy involves the ability to act and the proper act; if something has the capability to act correctly but does not actually act, it is incompetant.

[Socrates]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1396435' date='Oct 2 2007, 12:34 AM']O good grief!

If I had a nickel for everytime a reportedly Catholic politician called for a return to the Constitution, I would be a rich man. Yet Constitutionalism isn't what this country needs at the moment, nor a wrong-headed drive to lessen the federal government. Either of these views is both counter-productive and irresponsible. They are counter-productive, because it is through the strength of the Presidency, not the impotency of Congress that this nation has advanced further than ever towards Catholic social ideals, and it is, in fact, the President alone who possesses the strength of office to be a real model of social behaviour for the country. A lessening in his power would only result in power be distributed to the Washington bureaucrats who really do not need any encouragement from us to continue coddling their constituents. It is irresponsible because the United States, contrary to popular belief, is an empire. We behave like an empire, we impose like an empire, we are economically united like an empire, and we are advancing like an empire. We have no choice in the matter except to dissolve the "Republic" (which itself is an imperial term, as originally we were not one republic but 13 republics in one federation), or to accept the mantle of empire which we chose for ourselves beginning with Thomas Jefferson and culminating in the Empire's inauguration in Abraham Lincoln.
One lesson that all Empires must learn is that there is no choice but to advance. Should the nation ever stop growing in power and influence, it becomes weak at the foundations and collapses. Even so, the Constitution, and a kind of reductionist strategy towards its "restoration" is not what is needed. Instead we need real constitutional reform, the kind of reform that can encourage and mandate new situations in our present crisis. For example, there is currently no judicial oversight of the President, which would be solved if the Senate were made the Supreme Court. The Congress does not even really operate as a deliberative body when in plenary session, which would be solved by an appointed Senate taking the lead on the legislative process. Moreover, the popularity of the President is affecting elections in the legislative branch, which in turn makes it impossible to tell who actually is qualified for the job and who just seems better than the current president. This would of course be solved if the President were appointed by a deliberative process by the few, therefore having less public mandate, rather than our current deluded system of popular election.

The Constitution, moreover, is gravely flawed by its reliance on out-moded and unfounded Enlightenment philosophy, which could not effectively imagine government and the Church having a substantial relationship. This was commented on by Popes beginning with Leo XIII.[/quote]


[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1396482' date='Oct 2 2007, 08:21 AM']The problem is, that the principle of subsidiarity really should only be applied that already assumes that the highest level of government has the potential to exercise full authority when needed. For example, subsidiarity would become unjust if, instead of the federal government outlawing abortion, it used subsidiarity to blame the states who lack the political wherewithal to do so. Necessity makes the higher powers act.
Likewise, when the Holy Roman Empire was forming to unite Europe and defeat Islam, plenary power was always given to the Emperor, because no one else could accomplish nor hold together what he was trying to accomplish. As for the Civil War, as a Southerner I certainly have sympathies for the Southern cause, but our (Southern) grievance in that case could be justified not because we had the intrinsic right to act on our own authority, but because the Constitution and state governments seemed to grant that right. It was a matter of law not of natural rights.

I will go more into Leo XIII's position later, if time allows.[/quote]
I seems you are essentially arguing for a type of fascism (and those familiar with me will know that I am not a liberal who casually uses the word "fascist" to refer to whoever disagrees with me).

The problem in modern American government (and most other modern governments) is not too little federal government power, but too much. The federal government has grown rapidly in both size and power over the past 150 or so years. And this has done nothing to make it more virtuous, but rather more corrupt and bloated.

While the U.S. may have in practice become an empire, this says nothing about whether an empire is an ideal system. Roman imperialism went hand-in-hand with corruption, and its eventual collapse under the weight of its own over-expansion, as have most empires through history.

I am a strong believer in local autonomy and things being decided at the local level where possible.
That is subsidiarity - putting the local first, not relying on federal government to dictate every decision.

You claim strong central government is morally necessary (using an example of outlawing abortion), but this is not how it works in practice. It was in fact a violation of federalism and states' rights that brought us such judicial monstrosities as Roe v. Wade, which made abortion-on-demand the law of the land, ruling that individual states could not restrict abortion.
This is the same mentality found in Federal Court decisions banning the Ten Commandments from state courtrooms, and which some liberals now want to use to declare homosexual "marriage" a "constitutional right" which cannot be banned by states.

An all-powerful central government is a dangerous two-edged sword, and more often leads to godless tyranny than just and moral rule. It should be kept in check, not given more power, in the hope that it will somehow act for the good.
I think practically, we will sooner have anti-abortion laws, etc. in individual states than in the federal government.
Federalism and states' rights will allow for more moral government in states that choose it. Why should the people of, say, South Carolina, be ruled by the opinion of the politically correct in New York and California?

[SarahB]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1396930' date='Oct 2 2007, 11:39 PM']I think practically, we will sooner have anti-abortion laws, etc. in individual states than in the federal government.
Federalism and states' rights will allow for more moral government in states that choose it. Why should the people of, say, South Carolina, be ruled by the opinion of the politically correct in New York and California?[/quote]


For real. I certaintly don't want to be held to decisions made by the 9th Cicrus Court(And yes, that was intentional).

[dairygirl4u2c]

i wasn't very clear and i think that caused confusion. bottomline. subsidiary is good. whether incompetent should be included in thedefinition of subsidiary or as exceptions to it, i think is an interesting theretical debate.
as to incompetency. i think a state that doesn't have a minimum wage is incompetent, and i think feds can do something without overreaching or having probs. you think and i would agree a state that doesn't have abortion laws is incompetent. you disagree that a state without wages is incompetent. we both agree with the theory of incompetency. so it's a metter of deciding what is essetnial such that if a state is incompetent, the feds can/should intervene.