![\"Celebrate](\"https:\/\/rwefree.org\/thelp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/juneteenth-300x137.jpg\")
![\"Independence](\"https:\/\/rwefree.org\/thelp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/independence-day-300x220.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
On this Freedom And Independence Holiday season that runs from Juneteenth to Independence Day(June 19 to July 4), as we strive for a more perfect union, we celebrate our victories over governments that took our independence and individual freedoms. This is also the season to look critically at our government and its control over us, and to sound the alarm on the threat that centralizing this governmental control has on our freedom and independence. This is the perfect season to look at government from the libertarian perspective,\u00a0for all humans are created equal!<\/strong><\/p>\n As a libertarian, I am here to sound the alarm on the threat our federal government is to our independence and freedoms. So, from a libertarian perspective,\u00a0I<\/a>\u00a0will address several threats posed by the federal government in a series of articles<\/a>.<\/strong> These threats have been proven to be detrimental to individual liberty and the principles of libertarianism.<\/p>\n The good news is that each day is a new day to turn the titanic around and promote more freedom and independence.\u00a0Join the Libertarian Party today<\/a><\/span>\u00a0and celebrate and defend our freedoms and independence.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s delve into the third concern in this series, centralization of power<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Federal Government Centralization Of Power<\/strong>\u00a0Threat Alert<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Many libertarians express concerns about the centralization of power in the federal government. We argue that concentrating power at the federal level diminishes the influence and decision-making ability of individuals and local communities. Libertarians support decentralization<\/strong><\/em>, devolving power to states and local authorities to foster greater citizen participation and tailored governance. Let’s look at a few of the many concerning developments that point us toward the realization of this threat:<\/p>\n Supremacy Clause:<\/strong> Libertarians argue that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which establishes federal laws as the supreme law of the land, has led to a concentration of power in the federal government. We contend that this provision can override state laws and diminish the authority of local governments, limiting the ability of states to govern according to their own preferences and the principles of federalism.<\/p>\n The Supremacy Clause grants the federal government the authority to preempt state laws that conflict with federal laws or regulations. This means that if a federal law directly addresses an issue, it can override any conflicting state laws. It undermines state autonomy and limits the ability of states to enact laws that reflect the preferences and needs of their residents. This concentration of power at the federal level may disregard the principle of federalism and hinder the ability of states to experiment with different policy approaches. Here are two examples:<\/p>\n The federal government has significant authority to regulate environmental issues through laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. These federal environmental regulations often set national standards that states must comply with. While states have some flexibility in implementing these regulations, they must ensure their own laws do not conflict with federal requirements. The Supremacy Clause allows the federal government to assert its authority in environmental matters, superseding conflicting state laws or regulations. This concentration of power limits state autonomy in addressing environmental issues and dictates uniform standards across the country, which may not always align with the specific needs or priorities of individual states.<\/p>\n Gun control is an area where federal and state laws can sometimes come into conflict. While the Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, the federal government has the authority to regulate firearms under the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. When state laws on gun control differ from federal laws, the Supremacy Clause allows the federal government to assert its authority and enforce federal regulations, even if they conflict with state laws. This concentration of power can limit the ability of states to enact their own firearm regulations, potentially stifling innovative approaches or policies that reflect the specific needs and preferences of individual states or communities.<\/p>\n Federal Funding and Grants-in-Aid:<\/strong> Libertarians criticize the federal government\u2019s practice of providing funding to states and local governments with strings attached. We argue that this system, which involves conditional grants-in-aid, leads to a centralization of power as states and localities become increasingly dependent on federal funds, giving the federal government significant influence and control over policy decisions. Here are a couple of examples:<\/p>\n Education policy: The federal government provides significant funding to state and local education systems through grants and aid programs. While this funding is promised to be beneficial in supporting educational initiatives, it comes with strings attached. The federal government often imposes specific requirements, standards, and mandates that states and school districts must comply with to receive funding. This centralized control through funding can lead to a one-size-fits-all approach to education policy, limiting the autonomy of states and localities to determine their own educational priorities and strategies. Libertarians argue that this centralization can stifle innovation, hinder local decision-making, and prevent tailored solutions that best suit the needs of individual communities.<\/p>\n Healthcare policy: The federal government plays a significant role in healthcare funding and provision through programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. States receive federal funds to support these programs, but they must comply with federal regulations and requirements to receive the funding. This can include adherence to specific eligibility criteria, service delivery standards, and reporting requirements. While the funding is intended to expand access to healthcare services, it centralizes power and control in healthcare decision-making. We argue that the federal requirements are burdensome, increase administrative costs, and limit state flexibility in designing healthcare programs that are best suited to their unique populations and needs.<\/p>\n Preemption of State Laws:<\/strong> Libertarians highlight instances where the federal government preempts state laws, effectively overriding state-level decisions. This can occur when federal laws or regulations take precedence over conflicting state laws, limiting states\u2019 ability to govern according to the preferences of their citizens and eroding the principles of federalism. For instance:<\/p>\n Firearms regulations: The federal government’s preemption of state laws in the realm of firearms regulations can have significant consequences. For instance, the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 preempts many state laws related to firearms, establishing a comprehensive framework for regulating the sale, possession, and transfer of firearms at the federal level. This preemption limits the ability of states to enact their own gun control measures that may better reflect the preferences and needs of their residents. As a result, states with differing views on firearms regulation may be unable to implement laws that align with the desires of their constituents, potentially leading to a disconnect between federal and state policies and impeding local decision-making on a critical issue.<\/p>\n Marijuana legalization: Another notable example is the federal government’s preemption of state laws related to the legalization of marijuana. Despite several states legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational use, the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) preempts state laws that permit its use. This creates a conflict between state and federal laws, and the federal government can enforce federal marijuana laws even in states where marijuana is legal. This preemption disrupts state efforts to regulate and control marijuana within their own jurisdictions, leading to uncertainty and potential legal ramifications for individuals and businesses operating in compliance with state laws. It also highlights the tension between federal and state approaches to drug policy, as states seek to exercise their autonomy in determining their own marijuana regulations.<\/p>\n Executive Orders:<\/strong> Libertarians raise concerns about the use of executive orders by presidents to bypass Congress and enact policies unilaterally. We argue that the expansion of executive power through executive orders undermines the checks and balances system and concentrates authority in the hands of the executive branch, reducing the role of the legislative branch in the lawmaking process. Here are two examples:<\/p>\n Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): In 2012, President Barack Obama issued an executive order known as DACA, which allowed certain undocumented individuals who were brought to the United States as children to be protected from deportation and granted work permits. DACA provided temporary relief for these individuals, often referred to as Dreamers, without congressional approval. The executive order aimed to address the legislative impasse on comprehensive immigration reform. However, the legality and constitutionality of DACA have been subject to legal challenges and debates, highlighting the power of the executive branch to implement significant policy changes without direct congressional involvement.<\/p>\n Keystone XL Pipeline: In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline project. The pipeline, which aimed to transport oil from Canada to the United States, had undergone years of regulatory review and received approval from the State Department under the Trump administration. However, President Biden’s executive order effectively halted the project, circumventing the need for congressional approval or further legislative action. This executive action sparked controversy and debate, as it bypassed the traditional legislative process and demonstrated the authority of the President to impact major infrastructure projects through executive orders.<\/p>\n Federal Agency Rulemaking:<\/strong> Libertarians criticize the power of federal agencies to create regulations with the force of law. We argue that unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies wield significant authority in shaping policy, often without sufficient accountability or oversight from the other branches of government, leading to a concentration of power in the hands of administrative agencies. A few examples include:<\/p>\n Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA has the authority to create rules and regulations to address various environmental issues, such as air and water quality, hazardous waste disposal, and emissions standards. These regulations are often developed and implemented without direct involvement from Congress. For example, the EPA has issued rules on greenhouse gas emissions, fuel efficiency standards, and pollution control measures, shaping environmental policy without requiring specific legislation from Congress.<\/p>\n Federal Communications Commission (FCC): The FCC has the authority to create rules and regulations that govern various aspects of the communications industry, such as licensing requirements, net neutrality, and spectrum allocation. These rules are often developed through administrative procedures and do not require direct approval from Congress. The FCC’s regulations can have significant impacts on the telecommunications industry and consumer access to communication services, without being subject to specific legislative action.<\/p>\n Food and Drug Administration (FDA): The FDA has the authority to establish rules and regulations related to food, drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics’ product labeling, safety standards, clinical trials, and marketing practices. The FDA’s rulemaking process allows it to create and implement regulations that shape the pharmaceutical and food industries, without requiring explicit legislation from Congress.<\/p>\n Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The CFPB is an independent agency established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. It has the authority to create and enforce rules related to consumer financial protection, such as mortgage lending, credit card practices, and debt collection. The CFPB’s rulemaking process allows it to establish regulations without direct congressional approval. For example, the CFPB has issued rules on payday lending, arbitration clauses, and mortgage servicing, shaping consumer financial practices and industry standards.<\/p>\n Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The FAA has the authority to develop and enforce rules related to aircraft operations, pilot licensing, airport safety, and air traffic control. The FAA’s rulemaking process allows it to establish regulations that govern aviation practices, without requiring specific legislation from Congress. These rules can have significant impacts on the aviation industry and passenger safety.<\/p>\n Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): OSHA has the authority to create and enforce rules and regulations related to workplace safety, hazard communication, recordkeeping, and employee protections. OSHA’s rulemaking process allows it to establish standards without direct approval from Congress. The agency has issued regulations on topics such as asbestos exposure, chemical handling, and ergonomics, shaping workplace safety practices across various industries.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n These are just a few examples of a countless list of actions that illustrate how libertarians recognize the centralization of power to the federal government. It is impossible to know all of the threats to our freedom and independence from government power. It will keep gaining power unless we move the government to respect our freedoms and independence and diminish the size and scope of the federal government.<\/p>\n On this season of Independence and freedom, let us keep the libertarian perspective on federal government overreach alive and kicking. Next up in the Freedom and Independence Holiday series, The Lack of Accountability<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0from the federal government. As always\u2026\u00a0For liberty!<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/rwefree.org\/thelp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/centralfedgov-300x166.webp\")
<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n