” For much of its history, the United States had a notably decentralized government structure. Since the 1930s, the national government has undertaken new efforts to regulate the economy and society and to redistribute resources. Those new efforts have implied a greater centralization of authority in Washington. In the past the public often supported such centralization. Public opinion about federalism has changed. Voters are more supportive of decentralized policymaking on many issues where they previously supported a stronger national role. This shift in the public mood is consistent with other polling data that indicates profound distrust in the capacity of the federal government to act on behalf of the public good. On some issues, like national defense, much of the public continues to support national primacy. Such issues are often assigned to Washington by the Constitution. In contrast, much polling finds that many citizens believe state and local governments are likely to perform better than Washington. Americans support a more decentralized federalism than in the past both on particular issues and as a general matter of institutional confidence. “
The study is filled with topical data on the public’s shift away from supporting the overweening Leviathan state including this very telling nugget of information on attitudes towards healthcare …
As the above graph demonstrates , there remains one segment of society that is out of touch with the mainstream on who should decide the issue of healthcare and it’s not the Right . The results are the same or very similar on a wide range of issues , all indicating a strong support of state’s rights with the single exception of education policy .
The other single factor that remains steady is the Democrat’s desire for federal control over ALL issues . Once a statist , always a statist .
Read the entire study at Cato
Contact: (202) 224-5922 / email@example.com
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
” WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) today released a report – “The Legal Limit: The Obama Administration’s Attempts to Expand Federal Power” – that analyzes six instances in the last 15 months where the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama Administration’s arguments for increased federal power.
“When President Obama’s own Supreme Court nominees join their colleagues in unanimously rejecting his Administration’s call for broader federal power six times in just over one year, the inescapable conclusion is that the Obama Administration’s view of federal power knows virtually no bounds,” said Sen. Cruz. “This is a deeply troubling pattern that we will continue to highlight as long as this Administration continues seeking ways to expand its power in direct violation of Americans’ constitutional rights.”
Sen. Cruz’s report highlights the six cases that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected since January 2012. Had President Obama’s Department of Justice been successful in its cases, the federal government would have the power to:
- Attach GPSs to a citizen’s vehicle to monitor his movements, without having any cause to believe that a person has committed a crime (United States v. Jones);
- Deprive landowners of the right to challenge potential government fines as high as $75,000 per day and take away their ability have a hearing to challenge those fines (Sackett v. EPA);
- Interfere with a church’s selection of its own ministers. (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC);
- Override state law whenever the President desires. (Arizona v. United States);
- Dramatically extend statutes of limitations to impose penalties for acts committed decades ago. (Gabelli v. SEC); and
- Destroy private property without paying just compensation. (Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States).
The arguments advanced in these cases demonstrate an astonishing view of federal power on behalf of the Obama Administration that is worthy of further examination. View the full report below:”
The Legal Limit: The Obama Administration’s Attempts to Expand Federal Power