Remember, in the original debates on the constitution, there were those who wanted a very limited Federal government (The Federalists), and those who wanted an even more limited Federal government (The Anti-Federalists). The Anti-Federalists argued that there were not enough restrictions and checks on the power of the central, Federal government as proposed by the Federalists. They believed such a central government could and would eventually usurp the authority of the States.
It seems the Anti-Federalists may have been right. But, is the reason lack of checks built into the constitution? Or, is it that the States have ceded their authority and failed in their role to limit the central power? Ott gets right to the point:
"In the first quarter of 2009, for the first time in history, the Federal government became the largest source of income for State governments. James Madison's generation feared Federal bullies with bullets. They apparently didn't anticipate that tyranny could stroll in on a green carpet of cash...welcomed by the passively subdued States that had created the Federal Government."
RelatedPosts:
Balance of Power:
The Utility of Federalism:
The Federalism Series - A Primer
Why Feed the Pig:
Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!
