RateItAll: The Opinion Network

What I cannot understand is how the conservative administration squares states rights with the increase in the size of the federal government. FEMA and disaster recovery is a good example: just who should drive those efforts?

I would have to agree that this basic tenet of conservatism and commitment to constitutional republicanism has been abandoned in recent years in favor of the neo-con position of soul craft as statecraft that is held by our current administration. The assumption that state programs can be developed at the federal level to support a framework of public virtues is however discernable from the socialist ideological position that virtue is derived intrinsically as the system itself. It is a matter of what principles the programs are being developed upon and to what ends. I personally find both positions to be highly problematic due to the systemic nature of bureaucracies and the limits to government action; but there are distinctions to be made: The socialist believes that government needs to provide tangible needs as a matter of dogmatic principle and the neo-con argues that public virtues- derived from natural law principles of human nature can be developed through public works. One must be careful when mixing derision toward such policies with ideological positions imposed by the courts. There is no such justification for jurists to manipulate the framework of our constitutional system to meet and idelogical ends. The socialist or deontological liberal would argue the tangible needs are met through the obligation of human rights and should therefore be provide as a matter of right through judicial precedent. A neo-con would not make such an argument. And imparticular rulings that have recently continued to distort the commerce clause and have diluted the takings clause are not a made upon principles of neo-conservatism. Conservatives in general have never been in favor of having absolutely no government programs we've just disagreed on their size, scope and ends. And the commitment to the first priniciple of self government settles that perpetual discussion unlike the imposition of an ideology as a matter of dogmatic right. Like I've said, personally I believe one size fits all federal programs are doomed to fail because of systemic weaknesses of such programs but there are differences in principle that neo-cons, paleo-cons, socialists and liberals are acting upon.

This used to be an excellent reason to be a conservative, but GWB has led the party away from support of federalism towards a belief in a behemoth, all knowing federal government. A couple years ago, we used to call this radical liberalism / socialism. Now it's conservatism.

The Constitution was well thought out and organized; that's why it has withstood the test of time. Consequently, that is why I am a supporter of states' rights. Clearly, the people who framed the Constitution envisioned a limited role for federal government ... which is a far cry from what we have today. Federal government taxes too highly thereby discouraging people from creating businesses that bring jobs. And is too intrusive into matters that should be left to individuals (abortion, right to die, marriage, etc.) and matters that should be left to states (welfare, public education, etc.).

Sadly this is why the Civil War was fought. How I wish the current crop of republican Senators and Congressmen (and women) had a clue to this concept.