The government of the United States is not the Federal government. It is the National government and the Federal government consists of both the state and national governments. Both were created by the people and are to be the servants of the people.
Under the Articles of Confederation the original thirteen colonies formed a union of thirteen separate and independent states. The states created the central government and were superior to it. The national government was granted limited power by the states and was prohibited from taking actions that were not specifically delegated to it.
Many of the Founders feared that a strong central government would be very dangerous, They felt that it would be much harder to control than the governments of cities, counties and states. For this reason many of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution.
The men that we refer to as the Federalists were actually the Nationalists who favored a strong central government while others feared that the consolidation of power would jeopardize the sovereignty of the states and the people.
Ironically, the true Federalists were those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution while those who promoted its ratification simply called themselves Federalists. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, who were the authors of the Federalist Papers, favored a strong central government while Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason and a host of the signers of the Declaration of Independence opposed its ratification.
Power is very dangerous and whenever power is centralized the rights and liberty of the people are in serious jeopardy.
A Federal government is one where the power to govern is shared between the national and the state governments. The state and national governments are both agents of the people and the duties and responsibilities of each are outlined in the Constitution.
According to the Constitution the power and authority of the national government is limited to the power and authority which is enumerated in Article I Section 8. All authority not granted to the national government is prohibited to it by the states and is reserved to the states respectively and to the people.
Replies
Besides border protection and the post office, eye agree.-Kevin Smith
Stephen,
That is the whole point in having our military everywhere but here. They know that our own military, as a whole, will not attack our homeland, so they want ours elsewhere, so the military from other countries can come here, with less resistance, to take us over. This has been the plan for years, since roughly when Clinton had a survey done in the military to find out how many of our military would attack us. Obama has done it also.
I have repeatedly tried warning people about this, only to get a deaf ear.
I have a friend who is retired from the corporation, and he gets mad about it if I even bring the subject up. He has no clue about what is really going on. It is clearly obvious that the corporation has no need to shut us up. Very few listen to us anyway. We are just a bunch of nut cases!
Who is the "Tin Man"?
I mentioned the enslavement in the church the other day and got no response. They have no clue about the most enslaved people are the ones who think they are free, and can't see it. Like you said: Move on!
I thought Justice Kennedy put together a pretty interesting point when he talked about federalism in the case, Bond v. United States 131 S. Ct. 2355, 180 L. Ed. 2nd 269 (2011);
"Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powers between the States and National Government, federalism "`secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power,'" New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181. It enables States to enact positive law in [*2359]response to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and it protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that law enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 458. Federal-ism's limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism, just as injured individuals may challenge actions that transgress, e.g., separation-of-powers limitations, see, e.g., INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919. The claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a State's constitutional interests, even if those interests are also implicated."