Another excellent point. So, this "model" is kinda heirarchical, and the closer you get to the ground the more engagement there is with The People.

That's good - I like that model. It seems to me, that's the way guvmint is supposed to function. That's like, the "intent" of the Founding Fathers.

And I do appreciate your point about the hypocrisy also - which is certainly true too - and so then, I'd fire one back at you though ( ) -

Like, if we were to try to get rid of the hypocrisy "entirely" (which would be a tall order "all at once", I mean in the real world you'd have to take political "baby steps" and that kind of thing) - but "theoretically", would you say this "model" should be maintained "across the board"?

It seems to me, that if you're a real Federalist, your answer would be "yes".

And I "think" (and you seem to agree), that my own political position is "very close" to genuine federalism - but I'm not really 100% sure about that, you guys'll have to feed back to me about the areas in which it may differ -

So here's how this plays out in "my" political mind - I mean, I would "prefer" to engage my local government whenever possible, and when they can't provide the needed services I should be able to engage the State, and when that fails I should be able to engage the feds, and when that fails I'm basically SOL and I'll have to fend for myself. I mean, that's perfect - that's perfectly fine with me, and that's exactly how I'd expect my government to work.

but then, it would have to work the other way too, right? I want to keep the feds out of my life as much as possible. I want to be able to pick and choose where to live, according to the community whose preferenes most closely match my own. And within any given state, there "usually" oughta be a wide choice in that regard, but if I get really desperate I might consider moving to a different state, where the laws are different and there's a different way of life or whatever -

I mean, that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be, right? Not all of this federal "conformity" and top-down "imposition" of values and ideologies and gazillions of minute laws that conflict in so many different ways that you need a JD just to figure out where you stand in relation to your guvmint....

So yeah, I think I'm pretty much 100% aligned with the model that you're suggesting, and if that's Federalism, then that's me.

Now, let me ask you something - and I mean this in the most humble way - 'cause please treat me like I'm an ignorant school-child and I just need to be shown the basics before I can catch on to the more complex stuff - but...

Please feed back to me about what I'm saying in these posts. You know, like in the last two or three days I've generated VOLUMES of posts, and most of it is expressing extreme anger over GWB and the course his administration has been and is taking, and what I've been trying to say is, that the man is not a Federalist, and the political ideology he seems to subscribe to (as it's evidenced by his political actions) is just about the farthes thing from genuine Federalism that there IS, especially in the context of Republican politics.

I mean, that's why I keep saying that Hillary is just like Georgie and vice versa, 'cause neither one of 'em seems to understand anything about how this government was intended to function - or at least let's say, they have "different" visions about how it's supposed to work - "different", that is, from our Founding Fathers. Different, from the Constitution. To me, those two, Hillary and Georgie, are just opposite sides of the same coin, and they represent the same creeping evil, just in different forms. In my opinion Bushie is slightly more evil, but that's just my opinion - the reason is because he wants to reach around the Constitution in the name of expediency, and that in my opinion, is much worse than anything Hillary's talking about..

And, that's not to say that "anything that's not federalism is evil". On the contrary, there are probably "many" models that'll work, and the best way to say it is probably that I prefer the Federalist model. It makes the most sense to me. I mean, the best way I could analogize is: I don't mind the "testing" concept in No Child Left Behind. That's a worthy endeavor, to ensure that our education meets "minimum standards". BUT, I reject out of hand the notion that there should some kind of "common curriculum" linked to that concept - so in other words I think it's a "must" to administer the thing in such a way that it prevents teachers from "teaching to the test", and then secondly I think it's entirely unfair for the feds to blackmail the States over education money -

And I mean, we could argue about whether the feds should even be giving education money to the states - 'cause a better option might be to reduce federal taxes and just leave that whole thing up to the states and the locals - but I mean, it's already a done deal, right? In today's world, that's just "the way it is" - but given that, I really don't think it's fair for the feds to be extorting and blackmailing the States in that regard. That would be a Tenth Amendment issue, and that's why I've become interested in that particular question.

So yeah - I think we understand each other. This is good - see, this is perfect. This is what political debate is supposed to be all about. We start out with a slightly different approach, and slightly different terminology, and at first it seems like we're dis-agreeing with each other, but the more we talk the more we come to understand each other - and at the end of the day we might even discover that we're in complete agreement -

I mean not "complete" complete, but maybe "complete" on all the essentials that really matter, if not the minutiae - and that, is a hell of a lot better than most of what's going on in politics today, right?

So, well done.

Yeah, I'm interested in your opinion, since you seem to understand this issue - where do you stand on this Bush thing? Do you like the guy? Do you think he's "bad enough", or let's say, a serious enough challenge to the longer-term concept of a Federalist government model/structure, to warrant some complaints in that regard?

I mean, I'm "trying" to look at this whole spectrum of issues, through a Federalist lens - at least I think that's what I'm doing - and I think that's why I'm reaching the conclusions I am - but it would definitely help to have some other pairs of eyes on this thing, right?

(*)(*)(*)(*).... never thought I'd hear myself say that.... "help, this thing is too big for me"....