Find Insurance Online

Rick Perry, when he was the Republican governor of Texas running for re-election, said his primary opponent, Senator Kay Hutchison,  was spending tax dollars too freely in Washington.  That is to say, she is too Washington. He claimed that she didn't get what he called, “Texas values.”   Then, he added something really telling—something that went beyond his contest. “Washington’s one-size-fits-all approaches simply don’t work. They want more control of your dollars and your life, and they want it now. We surrender that to them with peril.”  His statement is worthy of our reflection even long after Perry's re-election.

Why doesn’t a one-size-fits-all approach not work in the United States?  Perry was essentially pointing to the empire-level nature of the U.S. general (or federal-level) government, which is to say that there are republics within the Union.  Hence the Texas governor used the word “surrender.”  Ordinarily, one-size-fits-all is the nature of a government’s legislation; a law is not meant to differentiate between individuals.  On the empire level, imperial legislation should take into account the different political entities that constitute or are members of the empire, even if the legislation applies directly to people.  In short, the governor was subtly pointing to how the US Government differs from that of Texas. President Obama's health-insurance law was vulnerable to being declared unconstitutional precisely because in urging that the U.S. Congress expand its authority to include a mandate to purchase health insurance, the President neglected the empire-level situs of the U.S. Goverment--a level that is not the first "go to." 

In other words, the Democrats forgot or minimized the enumerated powers aspect of the limited imperial-level government (the British imperial crown had similarly been limited in its imperial powers--essentially regulating interstate commerce and defending the empire). In Sandra Day O'Conner's words, "Congress has been acting like a state legislature."  Had the President urged Congress to make money available to states in which all of their citizens are covered, I suspect his objective would have been sufficiently satisfied in a way that would be consistent with what the U.S. is/are. I say sufficiently satisfied because in a Union of republics or countries, the innate diversity of states means that just as one size doesn't fit all, not all of the republics would decide to cover everyone. Hence, tolerance among the others is part and parcel of being in an empire-level political union. Where such tolerance is in short supply, one risks having one's prize Congressional legislation declared unconstitutional.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34402323/ns/politics-washington_post/