By Steve Byas

The Constitution of the United States created a federal system of government. To this obvious fact, enemies of that form of government create all sorts of dubious and dishonest arguments against it. Such subversion requires lying by public officials in the taking of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, including state legislators who refuse or just fail to fight usurpations of that principle by Congress, the executive branch, or tyrannical federal judges.

Let me address a few of the arguments used by enemies of our form of government, who desire to replace it with a unitary system of government as seen in much of the rest of the world, including the socialist democracies of Europe.

Thomas Jefferson dismissed the argument that the "general welfare clause" gives the federal government powers not enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Giving that clause such an interpretation would, in Jefferson's words, "render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States." On the contrary, Jefferson contended "(I)t was intended to lace them up strictly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, those powers could not be carried into effect."

The general welfare clause simply meant the areas of power of the federal government, that is, those things that concern the nation as a whole. What things? Those things enumerated in the Constitution.

Another argument used by those who desire to change our federal system is the Supremacy Clause. They argue that the Constitution gives the national government supremacy over the states. The Constitution says no such thing.

In Federalist 33, Alexander Hamilton, despite his being a strong advocate of national power, nevertheless said that the laws "which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of residuary authorities" of the states, "will be merely acts of usurpation," and certainly NOT "the supreme law of the land."

I could also discuss other misunderstandings, distortions, and outright dishonesty concerning such things as the commerce clause, and the bogus Incorporation Doctrine, but let us look at the practical side of why it is good to have federalism, or continuing to respect the reserved powers of the states that were specifically protected in the Tenth Amendment.

One of the first acts of the National Socialist (Nazi) dictator Adolf Hitler was to crush the powers of the historic German states, transferring general police powers to the central government in Berlin. Ever heard of the Gestapo? It is inarguable that any dictator does not want to respect states' retaining powers.

Now, I don't mean to imply that those who want to change us away from a federal system desire a national dictatorship, but that is the practical effect. The Constitution was created to "secure the blessings of liberty" not only to those of the Founders' generation but their "posterity," which is refers to you and me. Federalism is a critical part of the preservation of liberty.

It is unfortunate that many evangelical Christians have made a "deal with the devil," so to speak, and support more power to the federal government at the expense of the states, forgetting the Constitution, if certain immoral acts can be restrained.

Read this carefully: Once a precedent is established that the federal government sets the national standard of morality, instead of leaving any such laws and regulations to the states, the secularists in society will have won. The secularists will simply impose their Godless agenda at the federal level.

This is exactly what happened with prayer in schools, Bible reading in the schools, the removal of "Ten Commandments" monuments and the like from public property, and all other efforts to remove Christianity from the public square. The First Amendment said "Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion," not that the state of Oklahoma, a school district, or a county, or a city shall make no law.

Such arguments as whether the First Amendment created the "separation of church and state" are really missing the point. The First Amendment only prevented the creation of a national church. For several years, states continued to have established churches.

Why? Because the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the states from the federal government, not to restrict the states. Misusing the Bill of Rights to restrict the states turns its purpose on its head. Only by a gross misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (the nefarious Incorporation Doctrine) have we arrived at this point.

It was the federal government that nationalized the legalization of abortion in Roe v Wade. Without the belief that the federal government had the authority to impose such judicial tyranny on the states, Oklahoma's laws against abortion would have remained undisturbed.

Despite this, we have many who mistakenly believe we can simply pass a law in Congress and solve a societal problem. As President Warren Harding said, "All human ills are not curable by legislation."

We used to understand that the powers of the federal government in our system were, in the words of James Madison, "few and defined." That is why, when the progressives in the early 20th century wanted to outlaw alcohol nationally, even they knew they had to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to pass the Volstead Act, which outlawed alcohol at the national level.

Today, those who despise our form of government don't even bother with constitutional amendments. They simply cite the general welfare clause, the commerce clause, the national supremacy clause, or some other act of sophistry and dishonesty to enact some national standard. When they passed the nationalization of health care, Nancy Pelosi simply cackled, "Is that a serious question?" Someone had the rudeness to ask her to explain how the bill was constitutional.

I was even challenged on this the other day by someone who said, I'll bet you would favor leaving it to the states if someone murdered a child? Absolutely, all 50 states have laws against that sort of thing.

I wish folks just followed principle and were honest with their oath of office. However, failing such appeals to morality, consider the practical argument. By ditching federalism and enthroning nationalism, we may get our way occasionally, but we can never out-do the statists on the Left when it comes to expanding government power.

In a future column, I will explore some practical ways to restore our federal system.