The cart before the horse
Why government doesn’t function properly
Have you ever stopped to ponder how many people are employed by the federal government? What about your state government? Ever thought about the role of each (federal and state government) in protecting your liberty or the extent to which they should (or do) interject into your daily life? Have you considered why it is government doesn’t seem to work as you expect?
James Madison thought about these things. He thought about them in such detail, that he wrote quite a bit on the subject in the Federalist No. 45. I’m going to address them in an order opposite that which Madison laid it out, but with good reason. Let’s begin with roles:
The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation (sic), and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the state governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the state governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate indeed the federal powers may be rendered to the national defence, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favour their ascendancy over the governments of the particular states.
According to our founding fathers, the U.S. government was intended to have few powers, most of which are focused on foreign relations - not domestic regulation. Yes, the Constitution spells out a few specific areas in which the federal government is to be involved domestically, primarily that of ensuring interstate commerce is conducted in an equitable manner wherein one state doesn’t disadvantage another through unwieldy tariffs for importing or exporting goods between the two, and that of ensuring the States are safe from invasion (they are clearly not, as I recently detailed).
All other domestic issues - “internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state” and the concern of “the lives, liberties and properties of the people” are the purview of the state governments. Notice, these all belong individually to the state governments - not the federal government. Now try making a mental list of all the things in which the federal government is involved that here is designated to the states. I would wager that the list is longer than you can keep track of without pen and paper (or a computer). The federal government has taken over the roles of the state governments, all with the acquiescence of we the people.
Is it any wonder then that our country is now in such disarray? The cart is before the horse and trying to push it forward rather than pull it. The federal government is supposed to be beholden to the states, but this has been turned on its head. Not only do the states depend upon funds from the federal government, the federal government and the states now find themselves ever more often tied up in litigation over authoring and enforcing laws. Let us again turn to Madison to see how this is backward:
The state governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is no wise essential to the operation or organisation of the former. Without the intervention of the state legislatures, the president of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will perhaps in most cases of themselves determine it.1 The senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the state legislatures. Even the house of representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the state legislatures. Thus each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the state governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious, than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the state governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little if at all, to the local influence of its members.
The states are essential to the operation of the federal government, but the federal government should in no wise be the benefactor of the states - no the federal government is not essential to the functioning of state government. We are in a situation, however, where Madison’s statement is proven wrong: the federal government does not “feel a dependence” nor does it possess “a disposition too obsequious, than too overbearing towards them.” No, the federal government seeks now to overthrow the sovereignty of the states in favor of stronger centralization.
A result of this is the ever-burgeoning benighted bureaucracy burdening the bourgeoisie. According to Madison:
The number of individuals employed under the constitution of the United States, will be much smaller, than the number employed under the particular states. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former, than of the latter.
Can you possibly imagine (as was the case at the country’s founding) a federal government far smaller than the state governments? The base of the federal government, the three branches, in its most minimal form, would employ the President and Vice-President (the Executive), 435 Representatives and 100 Senators (the Legislative), and 9 Supreme Court Justices (the Judiciary) - 546 individuals in total. Common sense informs us there must be additional employees of the federal government - any executive department responsible for enforcing the laws authored by Congress, additional judges serving lower federal courts, and some administrative staff. At that, we could perhaps expect the federal government to comprise perhaps a couple of thousand at its peak.
How surprised would you be to learn that, according to a 2017 article in the Washington Post, including contractors, the federal government employs somewhere between seven and nine million workers? Instead of being smaller than the state governments, the federal government is the largest employer in the country! Consider that one of the largest retailers in America, WalMart, employs in the neighborhood of 1.5 million. Americans voluntarily patronize WalMart, and the money spent pays the salaries for all of those employees. By contrast, no one voluntarily patronizes the federal government; instead the government forcibly extracts from the people the payroll for those millions of bureaucrats and extraneous employees. What benefit do we receive from funding the behemoth?
The federal government, instead of performing its duties (such as defending our borders) persecutes and prosecutes its own citizens and the states from which it derives its power. It gives away money, munitions, and authority to foreign entities and invaders. It continually violates the Constitution (despite what SCOTUS may rule) and oversteps its bounds. It regularly infringes our rights it is intended to protect.
Is it truly a surprise to anyone that this is the case, when we’ve allowed the federal government to grow so large and out of control? Is it unexpected when we the people, and the states, have ceded ever more power to those who would rule rather than represent? It’s time we put the horse back in front of the cart, and this isn’t working at all. It’s time for the people and the states to take back the power and liberty that belongs to them and to return the federal government to the confines prescribed by the Constitution.
Excellent article.
As I see it, the problem is the perception of the people that they *want* socialism rather than adherence to the Constitution. The people have been led to believe that tyranny is a good and desirable thing.