Saturday, February 06, 2010

Comment on the Belmont Club:
"The rain in Spain"


Sachs' idea of "subsidiarity" is not just a trendy infusion of a Brussels term into America, It is a retread of a bad idea that came out of the Nixon administration, Revenue Sharing. The federal government sent a portion of the states own money back to them to fund local pork, as chosen by the local politicians who supposedly had their collective ears to the ground about local needs. That is a hard position to maintain while also having your snout in the trough. The whole corrupt project took an axe to the Constitution.

Under the Articles of Confederation the taxes were all collected by the States and then forwarded to the National Government for Congress to disburse. That did not work so it was agreed that under the Constitution Congress could set up its own collection service. Remember that before the income tax the way that the government made money was largely from the collection of tariffs on imported goods. That was probably the most significant power that Congress took away from the States. The Customs Service was established under the second law passed by the new United States Congress.

The States gave up something important but kept a close eye on the new central government, partly through the Electoral College and the Senate. The idea that power would shift so dramatically that from having a weak central government that had to beg the States for money we would go to a system where the States were so weak that they would be reduced to mere vessels begging to be filled with Federal dollars may have occurred only in the Founders worst nightmares.

Subsidiarity is not Federalism because it reverses the flow of authority and instead of allocating limited but sufficient powers to the center and keeping the bulk of power close to the Sovereign people it delegates to the lower level those functions, but not necessarily the authority, not needed by the central government. Federalism is a limited centralizing of power to correct an ineffective system called Confederation. Subsidiarity is a limited diffusion of functions by the central authority within a system that is at heart still Fascism.

1 comment:

Habeascorpuscanada said...

Re: "Subsidiarity is not Federalism because it reverses the flow of authority .... Subsidiarity is a limited diffusion of functions by the central authority within a system that is at heart still Fascism."

Hi there. Extremely interesting.

I am researching the European Union principle of "subsidiarity" -- which I had read is a "radical Catholic doctrine"; and I am interested in confirming some comments I have found online by this blogger:

Link: http://luxlucet.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/subsidiarity-is-not-federalism/

With respect to the potential LEGAL effect of subsidiarity, he says:

"In subsidiarity, all power flows from the top down. In fact, subsidiarity as defined above is a perfect prescription for tyranny."

Your remarks that subsidiarity is basically fascism would seem to corroborate the other blogger.

Two other authors, writing in "Papal Rome and the European Union", say:

http://www.the-highway.com/eu_Bennett.html

"The EU’s “single market”, “social chapter” and “subsidiarity” are concepts of Roman Catholic social teaching, originating with Pope Pius XI in the 1930s, and adopted by Hitler’s Vatican-backed Third Reich. Nazi Finance Minister Walther Funk, styled as the architect of Hitler’s “New Europe”, issued a compendium of papers in 1942 which contained detailed plans for a Europe bearing close resemblance to the Europe now emerging."

I am interested from a legal perspective in regard to Canada's Constitution. We have some academics up here who are apparently trying to rewrite the history of Canadian federalism to make it sync with the European Union's so-called "principle of subsidiarity". Peter W. Hogg, for one, whose books are referred to in Supreme Court of Canada judgments.

Would anyone be kind enough to give me some authoritative reading material on subsidiarity as fascism, as tyranny; and the proper method of analysis to demonstrate this? Also, the legal EFFECTS of subsidiarity -vs- the legal effects of federalism.

Thanks for your time.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Main blog: http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com
Facebook:
- Profile: http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=1777851356
- My Own Main Groups:
[1] HABEAS CORPUS CANADA, The Official Legal Challenge To North American Union
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=116430275057791

[2] CAMPAIGN for the TRUTH on NORTH AMERICAN UNION, 9/11 and QUEBEC "SECESSION"
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=116430275057791#!/group.php?gid=133732079978325

[3] CONSTITUTIONAL CLUBS OF CANADA
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=123939934287665