After reading Federalist Paper No. 6 which was written by Alexander Hamilton I noticed that he was concerned with disunity among the states. After thinking, doesn't his concern for disunity among the states present a case against the tenth amendment? I realize some may think that different states can be laboratories for experiment with various policies such as health care or education but Franklin's concern for dissension among the states gives me pause when I think of the tenth amendment. Shouldn't the states be uniform in their policies so as to not cause confusion either morally, politically or financially? But, isn't dissension and disagreement among the states what gave the federal government more power? Or was it due to man's lust for power, ambition, or vindictiveness? Maybe their wouldn't be dissension or discord among the states morally if they held different policies? The federal mandates we have today are far reaching and uniform among the states so this would be a case made for the tenth amendment. We do need to take power away from the centralized government - federal government - and return it to the states. I am glad that some states have made progress in instituting pro-life laws. That is another case in favor of the tenth amendment. There needs to be a healthy balance between which programs are relegated to the states and which are relegated to the federal government. It is extremely unbalanced now, where the federal government has been granted too much power.
Monday, December 19, 2011
My Thoughts on Federalist Paper Number 6: The Tenth Amendment and Dissension Among the States
After reading Federalist Paper No. 6 which was written by Alexander Hamilton I noticed that he was concerned with disunity among the states. After thinking, doesn't his concern for disunity among the states present a case against the tenth amendment? I realize some may think that different states can be laboratories for experiment with various policies such as health care or education but Franklin's concern for dissension among the states gives me pause when I think of the tenth amendment. Shouldn't the states be uniform in their policies so as to not cause confusion either morally, politically or financially? But, isn't dissension and disagreement among the states what gave the federal government more power? Or was it due to man's lust for power, ambition, or vindictiveness? Maybe their wouldn't be dissension or discord among the states morally if they held different policies? The federal mandates we have today are far reaching and uniform among the states so this would be a case made for the tenth amendment. We do need to take power away from the centralized government - federal government - and return it to the states. I am glad that some states have made progress in instituting pro-life laws. That is another case in favor of the tenth amendment. There needs to be a healthy balance between which programs are relegated to the states and which are relegated to the federal government. It is extremely unbalanced now, where the federal government has been granted too much power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
We will be lucky if there is not another civil war. As long as the federal government continues to usurp our freedoms, all things are possibe.
The Tenth Amendment is there to keep each state sovereign, but the libs in Washington can't control the countries' citizens if each state is sovereign. Each state must be the same if the libs' "utopia" is to be realized.
Post a Comment