What part of GP's take on the American federalist system are you describing as radical? Seems to me that the truly radical thing is what the federal government has morphed into over the years, its founding constitutional document notwithstanding.
The US Navy is the only constitutional branch of the DoD. How is that for being radical.
> Arising from or going to a root or source; basic.
>Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme or drastic.
> Relating to or advocating fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.
> designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue
> of or relating to the origin
> favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
> Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.
It seems today however we have allowed the federal government to simply ignore it because it is "too hard" to pass an amendment. Sorry if it important enough to expand the power of the federal government is should be important enough to put in the work to amend the constitution, and if you can not pass it then clearly the nation agree's it is not in scope of the federal government.
And by "nation" I do not mean a "democratic vote where by 51% of the population tells the 49% what do to" which seems to be common in the "Protect our democracy" crowd.
What you're not seeing with your point is that the federal government actually hasn't really expanded their power, it's just that more and more things have been "capitalism-ified" to where doing business purely within one state is uneconomical. More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines, and thus the federal government is governing more of the everyday person's life than they were 100 years ago.
The same Interstate Commerce Clause that in Wickard v. Filburn the federal judiciary interpreted as giving the federal legislature the authority to regulate intrastate non-commerce; and in turn relied upon in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has the authority to regulate the growing and use of cannabis for medical purposes by one man acting within one state and according to that state's laws for his own person.
> More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines
This is true, but the above examples show that the federal government is intruding in people's personal actions with no commercial purpose that stays confined to one state, on the basis that those actions might exert a force, however minute, on interstate commerce. The federal government may as well say that they can regulate everyone since people breathe air which crosses state lines and therefore is under federal jurisdiction.
You have to be kidding me. I did not think anyone would honestly make that case. Many argue about how the federal government needed to expand their power but I have never seen anyone claim they have not expanded their power at all
That is new one for me, and not supported at all by the historical record, which for example was clear there needed to be a amendment passed to ban alcohol but then magically due to some very bad court rulings (like wickard) they could ban whole classes of drugs without a constitutional amendment
History is VERY, VERY clear that FDR massively expanded the size, and scope of government and held the supreme court hostage forcing them rule his way after striking down many of his laws originally as unconstitutional
No one that has studied American History can say with the strait face the Federal Government has not expanded its powers