Courtesy
DOD
|
Services |
|
Categories - Copywriting - Shopping - Free Online Business Help - Telecommunications Services Articles: Government - Legally Fixing Things The Constitution allows the states to implement regulations. It does not allow the federal government to regulate. The federal government is supposed to protect our rights and freedom by preventing state implemented regulations from becoming oppressive. If Congress had followed the Constitution, we would not have become involved in Iraq, Viet Nam, or Korea. No funds would have been allocated without a declaration of war. Here are some of the ways that the federal government could have legally used the Constitution to protect us and provide economic stimulus without illegally getting involved in regulation.
The Constitution provides the government with the ability to protect free speech and equal rights. The government could have argued, that in order for the population's free speech rights to be equally exercised, everyone must have access to low cost telecommunications and energy which would have allowed them to facilitate it through the establishment of the RUS. They did not need to establish any regulatory telecommunications or energy agency which could then be manipulated by special interests with money. The Fed and others would not have been able to push for, so called, deregulation would not have occurred and we would not have had to endure the .com bubble.
The Constitution provides the government with the power to protect our property, which includes the air above it, the ground below it, and all of the public's property. Anyone polluting our property could have been stopped, fined, and damage collected on our behalf. You can drill, but you had better be real careful. If we did not have a regulatory agency for environmental groups to focus on, drilling would not have been able to be stopped nationally. Drilling may have been stopped in California and a few other states, but it would not have been stopped in Alaska, Louisiana and many others and we would not have become so dependent on foreign oil.
Given the right of the federal government to protect our property, it could have taken action against the automobile industry and forced them to stop polluting our air. Instead of regulations, the solution would have been more appropriately arrived at through by a court settlement that required the automakers to reach milestones or be forced to stop production and/or pay heavy fines. By stepping outside of the Constitution and attempting to regulate industry, the government has made all of the taxpayers liable for any industry failure and the resulting loss of jobs with regulations that cause them harm and favor one industry over another. The bailout loans that the auto industry is seeking would be more rightfully paid in the form of a settlement.
By using taxpayer money to selectively entice industries, foreign car makers in this case, the states have also given one industry an advantage over the other and subjected their taxpayers to liability. Hile, whether or not the states should even have this money to give is a point of contention, the federal government's legal and proper authority in this situation is to make sure that citizens are protected from harm by making the enticements equally offered to all industries.
The Constitution specifically bans a central bank. A bill or act like the Federal Reserve Act cannot legally override the Constitution. It must be changed through the Amendment process which requires ratification by the states. As a result of the Federal Reserve Act, private banks can now control all of our currency and control all of our industries by manipulating the money supply. Every dollar in circulation is owed to a bank. If the government were not involved, the banking industry would be serving as a part of the economy and would not have been able to create this national disaster. Banks, like other businesses would continue to fail regionally but the failures would be easier to withstand. A btter way to put money into circulation is to have the federal government issue it, interest free, to the states for improvement to their infrastructures or as grants to enable technolgy that creates sustained growth. This way, the money would stay in the economy instead of having to be eventually paid back to a bank.
The government could have argued that, in order for everyone to enjoy their rights equally, they must have access to education and required that public education be implemented in the states. It is to the state's benefit to have an educated population and this, most likely would not have been required. States with educational problems would have been able to look at other states and see what works. People might tend to move to states providing better educations for their children forcing the states to compete to maintain their tax base. Instead, the federal government has issued regulations that punish children instead of the people who are failing to educate. Without the Department of Education, we would not have a national education problem.
As long as the federal government is in the regulation business instead of the citizen protection business, it will be susceptible to special interests with money. A desire for power and the ability to exercise it is a natural human tendency. The ability to regulate was kept from the federal government and given to the states by the 10th Amendment. The ability to protect the population from adverse and oppressive regulation by the states was given to the federal government. We now have no one protecting us.
|
