I can say, I 100% agree with you. But what you are saying is 100% pointless. We can not have a small federal government. And here is why. Less then 100 years after your "set up (of) a federal government ", the United States of America FAILED as a country.
Small government does not imply ineffective government.
It split itself into two parts and created one of the most bloodiest and costly wars in the history of mankind. 640,000 Americans died in a war that was completely about " states rights." About 1 million United States citizens died about a war over "states rights." States rights has one simple and dramatic problem. If I want to own a slave in x state, I have to be able to move to y state and still own my property. Or are you saying that states have the right to strip you of your property?
The civil war was not exactly that simple. Basically, the southern states could see the writing on the wall and were afraid that the non-slave states would eventually grossly outnumber them in representation and push them around. So they decided to secede and form their own country, which was an obvious violation of the Constitution for two reasons: The oversight of not providing a constitutional means for a state to leave the union (The founders probably didn't think anyone would want to, but the mechanism should exist) and states aren't allowed to form treaties with each other (The Confederacy). Congress was in a bit of a bind because they couldn't let the states secede even if they wanted to.
As for your example, I own an AR-15 rifle (several actually, along with other similar items) and if I moved to California, I would not be able to take any of them with me. Obviously not the same as slaves, but property nonetheless. California obviously deems it ok to strip me of my property while residing in the state (Or risk being charged with about six dozen felony counts). Beyond the second amendment issues, most people would simply say "If you wanna move there, sell your stuff."
The other problem with states right, and we see this today in Europe, is import exporting laws. The vast, greater then 80%, of all goods that come into this country come by boat. There is only about 30 major harbors in this country, but only about they are completely within the boundaries of 6 states. Those six states control the vast majority of goods. You think taxes are high now, wait until califorina starts to tax all the goods that go through LA. When you have strong state rights, you create competition between the states, which will lead to disputes, and then to war.
Funny, that was not overlooked:
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another"
-Article 9, US Constitution
Additionally, I give you Article 10 in it's entirety:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of [SIZE=-2]the[/SIZE] Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Sooo, it would appear that any of those problems arising did do out of failure to adhere and enforce the provisions of the Constitution as it existed, without the need for further legislation. Congress has the power to "Regulate commerce... among the several states" which, contrary to popular interpretation, does not mean "control everything that could possibly affect anything that crosses a state line". The purpose was to allow for orderly, fair, and efficient commerce itself.
The European union was created, because the financial and trade restrictions between the land lock areas and the major ports started to strangle the countries, which led to acts of war. Strong state rights is a failed policy that will led this country back to another civil war. It has not worked in the United States, Europe, Africa, or the Middle East. In order to maintain the union, the states have to give up there rights, and in 1861, this country fought and lost those rights. I understand what you are saying. You want a smaller government, so do I. But allowing Ohio to dump toxic nuclear waste into the southern flowing rivers is going to create conflict.
As a slight point of order, it should be noted that "states rights" is something of a misnomer. States and governments do not have rights. They have powers. Only people have rights.
Hence the 9th and 10th amendments:
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The essence of federalism is that the federal government has certain powers, and yes, that means the states give up those enumerated powers (Article 1, Section 8 defines the powers the feds have, and article 10 defines those given up by the states). What we have now is a certain redundancy of some powers and outright usurpation of others by the feds. This is simply not how it is supposed to work.
Everyone of those laws that you talked about, was put into place, because if they where ignored, they would create intense hostility between the people in the state, and between the states themselves. I am with you on that fact, smaller government is better government, but republicans do not offer you smaller government.
In fact, republicans offer you larger and more expensive government.
Out of the 14 trillion dollars we have in debt, 10.5 trillion was spent by a republican president. Read this, it is 100% true.
Republicans and Big Government - James Ostrowski - Mises Daily Bush jr, passed the medicare part d system. By itself is will be the third largest entitlement program, ever. Right behind the US military and Social Security.
That, in essence is what the tea party is getting at and why I still oppose Democrats at every turn. Basically my thoughts are that the Republicans will tell me what I want to hear but probably aren't very serious about it, while Democrats tell me what I don't want to hear, and I know they're serious about it. The (very short) list of things Obama promised that I agree with is nearly identical to the list of things he broke his promises on.
