Free AI Website SoftwareThe experiment that is The United States of America was founded with a unique emphasis not on the powers afforded to the government but on its limitations. The whole of the bill of rights which are the first ten constitutional amendments directly establishes these limits. That the most foundational laws of the land do not focus on mandates for the citizens but on what the government shall not do to restrict them has likely been the most stabilizing feature of the US government and the countries which have chosen to emulate it.
Further diluting the US federal government’s powers, Article 1, Section 8 defines its jurisdictional limits to matters that impact interstate commerce and international relations or defense. In short, the federal government’s influence is limited to issues external to individual states except when ensuring the Bill of Rights is being followed. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, unless it is a matter that requires jurisdictional oversight at an intrastate level, the constitution outright forbids it!
Positions regarding what issues should be included in federal oversight varied greatly, even at the nation’s founding. Thomas Jefferson was an ardent advocate for state rights with minimal federal involvement while his contemporary Alexander Hamilton was in favor of expanded federal influence over the states. Although popular culture has attempted in recent years to present Hamilton as somehow morally superior to Jefferson, his role as a reseller of slaves is arguably worse than ownership. Despite both being participants in that practice, they were in agreement that it was incompatible with the constitution and worked towards its eventual abolishment. But as for their contrasted politics, both brought valuable insight and contributions that have benefited the nation for centuries.
Although The Constitution protects the internal independence of states as promoted by Jefferson, the nation did suffer a rough start at first by way of an underfunded federal government. Hamilton also highlighted concerns over the states enacting laws and practices that would be considered harmful to its neighbors. For example, if a state enacted an interstate tariff, erased debt issued by another state, or endeavored to operate their census or elections in such a way to disproportionately impact the results of a national election, these would be ways in which a state or its citizens could use unfair practices to gain a advantage over its neighbors. Some degree of portability for rights and liabilities needs to exist to be considered a single nation.
Preventing contentious practices between states inherently establishes free market competition between them. Each can and does decide how to self-govern, regulate, and tax its residents. And with free movement between states, those same residents can choose to move to another state that is more favorable. Whether for employment, tax burden, educational opportunities, or environment, each state has the opportunity to compete for growth among the others. Ultimately, any wisely regulated free market benefits all participants.
That being said, it is important for the federal government per its constitutional mandate to maintain a parsimonious relationship with states. But while seeking to maintain harmony in the republic, federal regulation seeking to homogenize the interior management of states is in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment. This means that constitutionally it is required for a federal law to prove it is important in protecting the interest of the states collectively in a way that the individual states cannot do on their own. Again, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
For example, the Supreme Court recently overturned the Roe decision which incorrectly established a national regulation via the court system that did not reflect the differing opinions of the citizens within the states. The court accurately identified that the issue involved was not related to exterior defense, interstate relations, or an obvious violation of the Bill of Rights. Referring to 1 U.S. Code § 8, it states that a person is, ““born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.” Although this doesn’t declare personhood before birth or extraction, such a nebulous definition is best dealt with at the state level rather than being mandated federally. Now the people in each state are democratically deciding their own terms to this issue of regional interest. But also as a state issue, there is no jurisdiction for a state to impose its regulations on the practice of another state allowing US citizens to seek care or residence in areas that best fit their needs.
Similarly, the Dredd Scott decision in 1857 legislated from the bench that blacks were property and not citizens. Seemingly a setback for the abolitionist sentiment, in this case it led to the eventual adoption of the 13th and 14th amendments that extended citizen rights to all who are born of citizens or naturalized. It was also made clear that the definition of any human as property was in violation of the Bill of Rights which, per the constitution, is a federally protected right.
Over time, it is the well intentioned but often irrational reactions to apparent injustices or other social hardships that lead to an excess of regulations seeking to abolish such conditions. However, it is impossible to guarantee happiness or success as it is individually subjective and therefore an indeterminate state. The result of such overregulation is inevitably the suppression of means for the population which is ironically the metric a governing body to seek to expand. Also, whenever the scope of a regulation is limited or poorly defined, the result is often an overcorrection which rewards those who game the resulting system (a.k.a. Perverse Incentive or the Cobra Effect) . This ever present tug of irrational bleeding hearts amplified by opportunistic egoists leads to an erosion of self-reliance and social cohesion that ultimately undermines whatever progress and stability a society has made.
On the other hand, fully unregulated libertarianism has its own perils. Romanticized stories of the American “wild” west illustrate the inherent individual risks of minimal oversight and inadequate intergovernmental relations. This also tends to result in a general disregard of the environment which is still a significant concern across the world. Predatory practices of companies and financial groups have needed to be reigned in through anti-trust regulations to prevent a notable negative impact on the citizenry and other competing businesses, and the Nixon administration established the EPA specifically to address environmental concerns with various industries. It is imperative that some degree of regulation is present and enforced, done so within the applicable jurisdiction (regional or federal), and established proactively with the goal of continued stability and sustainable growth.
But this proper scope and amount of regulation is a continuously shifting eigenstate where the rationale for adding and revoking regulations over time shifts to address changing conditions to maintain an even keel. This persistent monitoring and adjusting is a responsibility that must be taken with thoughtful commitment to the common good over individual or group interests. And it is this challenge that is required of all governing bodies and their citizens since, "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran
This is the philosophical razor by which I parse all knowledge: scientific, sociological, and philosophical. With great appreciation of quantum mechanics, it is through this parsimonious lens I have sought to distill the successes and failures of society throughout history including the American experiment. The principles that led to the extended success and ultimate failures of all governments and their societies are closely tied to the aforementioned principles. And what makes the representative republic a successful government model in the long term is its ability to address the diverse interests of the local constituents while providing a unifying tier to address common interests which are largely external to the union.
For populations that are less diverse culturally or geographically than the United States, a representative republic may seem superfluous. However, the statement, “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time,” still rings true. And where this adage is most often applied to the masses, what two people can say they’ve always been in agreement all of the time? As individuals are we always happy with our own decisions at all times? Clearly that quotation is applicable in all places and at all scales. And a representative republic government like that outlined in The Constitution is a successfully scalable administrative model from families to communities, cities to counties, and states to nations.
Where the primary job of any parent is to protect their children from the dangers of the outside world while managing relations with their siblings, the ultimate goal is for those children to be self-reliant and successful on their own accord. And so it is with a representative republic where the goal of the federal tier must be focused on external threats and interstate regulations, but the state and local tiers must be responsible for their own experiments of self-reliance lest they weaken themselves or the whole.
questions@WhetScience.com
Free AI Website Software