“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.  In practice, there is.”

You often hear it said that in theory Socialism is an enlightened system.  (This is, of course, nonsense.  In theory, Socialism is oppressive, bleak, and destructive to the human spirit.)  That said, tell your theory to the man from Kiev who stood in Soviet breadlines.  There is always a difference between a plan on paper, and a plan executed.

In practice, even in areas where the federal government has constitutional authority to act, it often does so inefficaciously.  Take, for example, a trip to the post office.  Even this small, simple interaction will often leave the most patient person ready to write Congress. Indeed, try to recall a single trip to the post office that left you pleased with the efficiency of the service or the quality of the customer care.  I doubt this experience is frequent.  Fortunately, when it comes to mailing our packages (though not our first class mail), we have a choice among several delivery services (though as taxpayers, we only subsidize one).  Unfortunately, in so many other areas where the government operates, we don’t always have a choice.

In theory, much of what Washington says it is going to do sounds just fine.  (Think: the promise of home ownership through Fannie Mae.)  In practice, practically every federal program is inefficient, costly, and in many cases, rife with fraud.  It is a shame that our labor is appropriated to fund so many inefficiencies in so many areas that are outside the scope of proper federal action.  It is an even greater shame that the supposed “beneficiaries” of these programs either end up mercilessly dependent, or standing in line frustrated, waiting for their number to be called.

…in their graves.

Thomas Jefferson cautioned, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

The architects of our constitution zealously guarded states rights because they recognized certain fundamental truths.  First, local problems should be handled locally.  Then, as now, the public concerns of citizens varied greatly by jurisdiction.   And this makes sense. Massachusetts, for example, at the time of ratification had different priorities than Virgina or New Jersey.  Indeed, viewed from today’s perspective, what business does a body of 525 people have drawing expansive laws that affect equally the taxi driver in New York and the farmer in Iowa?

Second, the federal government is largely immune from popular restraint.  It is difficult enough to keep tabs on local and state governments.  It is made exponentially so when our leaders in Washington operate from thousands of miles away, representing thousands of competing priorities.

When Washington tries to answer all of our problems, inevitably it creates more of them. And in the process, robs our state and local governments – and ultimately the people – of the ability to operate freely.

I had a discussion the other day with a colleague who was praising wildly the protections that are afforded to us under the Fourth Amendment.  (As criminal defense lawyers, we have these discussions often.)  He was saying how grateful he was that the government cannot just willy nilly invade our right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.  And he is certainly right – we should be very grateful for this.

Not two breaths later, however, my co-worker voiced his support for D.C.’s gun ban and for restrictive gun laws in general.  Now I am by no means a bring-your-gun-to-Sunday-service kind of Arizonan.  But, surely my friend would admit to some intellectual dishonesty.  Or, perhaps, he skipped over the Second Amendment in law school as he was blasting his way down to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth.

This mindset, sadly, also pervades the ranks of our lawmakers.  Often times they act as though they are unrestrained by our country’s great charter.  If there is a policy objective to pursue, well then pass a law that pursues it.  If politicians don’t like guns in the District of Columbia, “Hell, we’re Congress, let’s ban ‘em.”

The problem with this is that politicians cannot do whatever they want (or at least they ought not to).  Because there is a Constitution that restrains them (or that ought to).  And, as for my friend and colleague: if you respect the Constitution, you must respect all of it.  You can’t pick and choose.  Or, if you don’t like some part of it, well, then, there is a process to amend it.  And, fortunately, it requires more than an act of Congress to do so.