Reply #12: This country might still be without an electrical grid if it had not been for FDR. [View All]

In fact, all of our major infrastructure might well not exist if we solely relied on private investment. Unconstitutional for the government to be involved in these things? Absolutely not! What is the phrase "to promote the general welfare" supposed to mean anyway? If our forefathers had had the attitude displayed by Republicans today at the Constitutional Convention, we probably would not even have a Constitution simply because the Constitution took power away from state governments, and centralized power in a federal government.
In fact, we probably would not even exist as a country today because dispute between factions would have torn us apart.
That is the danger we face today by giving TOO much power back to the states. Put simply, it is a "divide and conquer strategy" and it is working. There are certain things that are better handled at the state level, which are those things that are peculiar to any certain state BUT broad programs that affect the entire population, like healthcare, vital infrastructure, defense, civil rights, etc., deserve attention at the highest level. It is only at the federal level that ensuring "domestic tranquility", providing for the "common defense", and promoting the "general welfare" can be carried out for all of the people. Certainly, the states have a significant place because each has a different set of immediate circumstances, but those things that affect us all are the responsibility of all - and that implies the federal government.