Here's a good "question" for the Bund...

All of us here agree that the scope and power of the Federal Government in the US has expanded far beyond what the Framers of the Constitution intended when they wrote the document. Not all of us agree on what are "legitimate" areas of Federal responsibility and what are not, but the vast and ever-growing size and authority of the Fed is something we all know to be more than it was ever intended.

Secession is never an option for a State, now or in the past, so what ARE the options available to States like Louisiana or Arizona that feel their "sovereignty" is being challenged or infringed upon by the Federal Government? I think the case can be made that, once the Fed has taken on a particular responsibility that used to reside with a State, it is never going to give that responsibility back to the States.

Example: Since the New Deal Era (I shudder to mention this... honestly), the Federal Government has used a much broader and far more general interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate (or in some case, outright control of) many aspects of the national infrastructure. Some of these (in my opinion) are legitimate Federal points of responsibility (interstate railroad regulation for uniformity and safety, for example, or the FAA). Others, such as the means by which the Federal Government has forced States to enact laws they otherwise would not have by threatening to withhold Federal funding for things like Interstate Highways, or the Feds ability to regulate and control railroad operations that exist solely within the borders of a State (the New York Metro lines, for example) because the people or goods ON the trains effect interstate commerce... those I have a serious issue with.

So, there are no reasonable examples of the Fed relinquishing control of any aspect of economic or regulatory control (of ANYTHING) once they have assumed it... not even Reagan did this, and he ran on the promise of "smaller Government".

We know that there are more than 400 petitions (some sites say there are more than 700) by the required number of States calling for an Article 10 Constitutional Convention, the first of which was submitted (and subsequently ignored by Congress) in 1803, and the most recent was submitted in 2002. None of these Convention petitions have been recognized, let alone acted on... so this seems a dead-end road for our purposes, doesn't it?

The closest I can come to finding a "success" story in the effort to reduce the size and scope of Federal government was in Reagan's "New Federalism" initiative. He didn't get very far in reducing the SIZE of government... but no one can say he didn't reduce the means by which funds were spent by the Feds on the States. His "block grants" gave the individual States the money they needed, without the added baggage of requiring the States to spend the money according to Federal guidelines. As far as I can find, this is the ONLY example of a "deregulation" effort that had any lasting effect or result, and it pretty much ended with the inauguration of George W Bush in 2001. (NOTE: I found it interesting that, next to Reagan himself, the President that most measurably supported the "New Federalism" efforts wasn't Bush Sr... but Clinton, who continued the "block grant" efforts despite rabid Congressional opposition prior to 1994, and again after 1997) I think that a case can be made that THIS policy of Reagan's goes just about as far in contributing to the Boom of the 90s as the Reagan Tax Cuts did, because it encouraged States to spend as THEY saw fit... rather than as the Fed saw fit.

So, again, what do the States do now? Obama will never advocate block grants... and neither will the current Congress (or any Congress, in my opinion). Obama has sworn that he will make the Federal Government the "fix-it-all" solution to every crisis or problem that comes along, which means to me (a registered Democrat, mind you) that he wants an even BIGGER and MORE INTRUSIVE Federal government than we enjoy now.

The Federal Government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona in regards to its immigration law. They have also filed ANOTHER suit (three total now) against the State of Louisiana in an attempt to get the drilling moratorium reinstated there (and all along the Coast). I think that the various States that feel they have had their 10th Amendment rights infringed upon by the Federal Government should file suit. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that, since the SCotUS has decided in 1971 (Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents) that the Federal Government can be held responsible for damages resulting from the infringement of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (which also protects the STATES rights, via the 10th Amendment), Arizona and Louisiana sould file suits for damages resulting from Federal interference in State affairs that are costing the States and their tax payers money.

What better way to get the Feds to STOP interferring in State issues and policies outside of Federal scope than to show that doing so will cost the Feds more money than they gain?