Quote Originally Posted by efmbman View Post
I was at a dinner party once (true story!) and happened to be making small talk with an ACLU lawyer. Nice guy overall. What you stated about the Fed serving the states was the intent. His position was that since the states did not uniformly protect their citizens (deep south after reconstruction), the Fed did what the states would not do. The growth of those alphabet agencies came about because of that. Having to send troops to ensure minority students can attend school without being harrassed (or killed) sent a clear message to Washington DC that some states were simply not interested in upholding the Constitution or the amendments thereof. He made a decent case, and I have not heard a convincing counter-argument. Just a theory, but a darn good one in my opinion.
All Progressive agendas are sold based on protecting someone, based on helping those who are incapable of doing things for themselves.

I find it interesting that he skips the whole supression of seccession issue, and the complete destruction of the conept that Federal authority derives from the States expressed when the Federal authority is used to prevent States from reclaiming their sovereignty. He drew the starting point at the typical "protection" sales line, choosing events that came AFTER the open display of Federal disdain for State sovereignty.

There was a great deal of Federal over-reach in and around our Civil War. The events leading up to the declerations of seccession and the military response from the Federal government clearly show that our Federal government had already gone off the rails by that point. This is a truth that a great many people refuse to consider.