This is because the Constitution is supposed to be an enumeration of what the government is allowed to do. The limitations are there to narrow the scope of those enumerated powers. In this context, enumerating most rights of citizens would have been redundant. The enumerated citizen rights were those that could be affected by the powers the government was granted.
Unfortunately, Commerce Clause abuse and the effective neutralization of the 10th Amendment has created the opposite situation where the government can do anything it wants as long as it isn't specifically prohibited, and citizens are only guaranteed rights if they are specified.
I mean, that's true, but it's also true that it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump forward at the same time, particularly when corporations comparatively have no hurdles at all over the same geographic region. Getting 50 of anything to do something at the same time is nearly impossible. If we want to do something about many significant, widespread problems, we need the power of a centralized Federal government. As the saying goes, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Our Constitution wasn't written with the management of 50 states and citizens numbering nearly 350 million in mind. Our founding fathers expected that there would have been multiple constitutional conventions by this time. It's easy to see the dilution of individual voices[0]. Our founding fathers though that one representative for every 40,000 individuals was inadequate, and changed it to be closer to one for every 30,000. Today, it's one for every 700,000 on average.
No, I don't think that adding more representatives would help the problem, but our political system, invented in the 18th century, is nearly overwhelmed by the sheer volume of people in this nation.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_ap...
To what extent do we actually need to have all states do exactly the same? It's a common argument, but there are many independent sovereign states out there that are smaller than many of US states, and they're doing fine solving their national problems despite their size. Sometimes - quite often - that happens with cooperation with other states, but such cooperation does not require an overarching government entity.
Sure, that means that US would not be a state in a sense that, say, France is a state, with a strong national identity and uniform politics. But does it have to be? I would argue that there is no truly democratic way to rule 300 million people from a single center, and decentralization is key to real democracy. Conversely, I don't see why my ideas and values have to be pushed on someone in the opposite corner of the country, but not, say, across the border into Canada.
> As the saying goes, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Whose saying? Last time I remember hearing that everywhere, it was to justify stuff like the PATRIOT Act and other post-9/11 abuses.
> Our Constitution wasn't written with the management of 50 states and citizens numbering nearly 350 million in mind. Our founding fathers expected that there would have been multiple constitutional conventions by this time. It's easy to see the dilution of individual voices[0]. Our founding fathers though that one representative for every 40,000 individuals was inadequate, and changed it to be closer to one for every 30,000. Today, it's one for every 700,000 on average.
The even bigger difference is that those representatives then go and vote on far more issues than they did when the system was originally devised, which increases the dilution of individual voices, by bringing more important issues to the level where their vote is at it most diluted - as opposed to state level. Of course it's going to be overwhelmed.
Part of the reason the issue has gotten out of hand is the relative weakness of states to enforce the cost of negative externalities on business. As soon as one state passes regulations, it’s too easy for many companies to pack up and leave for ‘greener’ pastures where the politicians would rather tout economic improvement at the expense of those negative externalities. As a result, problems like this often end up hoisted to the next level of government to solve issues in a more equal manner.
Just look at the ways cities were tripping over themselves to look attractive to Amazon for HQ2 to see this phenomenon in action.
OTOH, if that is the key problem, then why not make feds an arbiter specifically for such externalities? i.e. they'd be the ones establishing whether something negative is actually happening, measuring the impact, and imposing some remedy (either cease and desist or compensation, depending on which one is appropriate).
If we're talking about AGW, say, and carbon tax, then let's have the feds tax the states proportionally to their total carbon output. The states can then pass those carbon taxes onto their residents in various ways - and how exactly they are allocated is then a matter of state policy - but it has to add up.
No, I don't think that adding more representatives would help the problem
For instance, making drugs illegal (accounts for most federal prisoners) and running social welfare programs (accounts for most federal spending).
If something really is an important power the federal government must have (maybe some kinds of environmental regulation powers?), then make an amendment that clearly scopes the boundaries of that new power.
The great thing with this system is that it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump backwards at the same time.
Some places will always remain sane, even in the darkest hours. That is the greatness of a decentralized system!!
Why couldn't a similar system work well in the US?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:Org...
This is simply not true. The Founders lived through the Articles of Confederation, in which the founding document explicitly enumerated the only powers the government would have. The Constitution was an explicit rejection of that philosophy, and was intended to create a government with broad powers. The point of the Bill of Rights was to place limits on those broad powers.
Unfortunately, Commerce Clause abuse and the effective neutralization of the 10th Amendment has created the opposite situation where the government can do anything it wants as long as it isn't specifically prohibited, and citizens are only guaranteed rights if they are specified.
This is also not true. A great many of the Founders considered the 10th Amendment to be meaningless fluff added only to mollify the slave-owners who wanted restrictions on the Federal government's ability to curtail their ownership of slaves.
And all of those broad powers they wanted the government to have, were explicitly written into the text of the Constitution. Sometimes it was deliberately vague, like the Commerce Clause (although if you showed our modern jurisprudence on that to people who wrote it, they would be horrified). And in the Federalist Papers, there are several instances where some bit in the Constitution is explained as, "yes, this is rather broad, but the government needs it for real world reasons". But it is always enumerated.
It's pretty clear from the laws the First and Second Congress passed that they had an even broader definition of "broad powers" than we do today. (And by the way, the Federal Papers have no legal authority in US law. They're interesting from a historical perspective because they documents an attempt by one politician to sway the opinion of the general public, but they don't form any part of the corpus of American jurisprudence.)
I'm well aware that the Federalist Papers aren't law. The reason why I mentioned them is that they come from the party that was anti-Articles, pro-Constitution and pro-strong federal government. So reading them gives you an idea of what they meant by "strong federal government", and what they considered to be out of bounds.
The multiple attempts by former CC members to pass anti-slavery legislation in Congress in the many decades leading up to the Civil War.
There are a number of other examples, well covered by a number of primary and secondary sources.
It uses at least three different terms, citizens, persons, and “the people” (and the last is the most common where it concerns rights). The precise boundaries of the latter is fairly hotly contested, and the Courts to date haven't given precise guidance (it is clearly broader than citizens and narrower than persons, but the exact boundary is murky; the US DoJ has often advocated for a definition of citizens and some subset of lawfully admitted aliens, possibly only LPRs, but others have taken other positions.)
As for rule of law, there are examples of non-democracies with solidly developed rule of law, like present-day Singapore and Hong Kong, or Britain in the 19th century (and before).
Now imagine the good we can do with real electoral reform (Democrats idea of repealing citizens United is a meager start, but weak lip service to real reform)
What we have now - First Past The Post Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Range Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig
Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
Alternative Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Mixed-Member Proportional Representation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
Electoral reform is just step 1, something we can all come together for. Something no one could possibly be against.
How about if I control who can be voted for?
Of course it matters - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Erph1L_XwVQ
bonus video:
This video will make you angry -https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Would that be such a bad thing?
In some cases the possessor of a right is not identified. E.g., the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd amendments do not specify whether they apply to all persons in U.S. jurisdictions or just citizens. These are the ones that are most likely to be unavailable to non-U.S. persons. E.g., non-U.S. persons are generally not permitted to keep and bear arms within the U.S.
Additionally, a lot of the constitution is actually phrased as limits on the government rather than rights as citizens.