Is all of this Ronald Reagan's fault? He said "GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM" and lotsa folks believed him. Are you among them?

Or screwing! Who said "man is the only animal who blushes or needs to" You didn't answer my question Walt. Do you agree that government is the problem? Thank you for your response and Happy Wednesday to you and yours! :)

I don't know if government is THE problem ... but it sure contributes to a lot of them.
I firmly believe government causes a lot of problems, just to justify its own existence by claiming to provide solutions.
Not that we don't need a government, but that a lot of the size of government is due to problems (or "drama") it creates just to enlarge its control over our lives.

Can you give me some specific examples m'dear rather than a generalization an overview a snapshot?

Where would you start and what would be the goal? You can't take on an entire government at once right? You'd have to do it in pieces. Department by department. First Federal then state by state? One size would not fit all but a loose template might be appropriate.

Lest you think I'm mocking you I am not. I AM DEADLY SERIOUS. So student ready and willing to listen. Is teacher ready to share? This post was edited by RosieG at April 28, 2021 8:06 AM MDT

I would start by eliminating the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Let's face it - if the "native people" are truly sovereign nations, they need to be fully treated as such.
We need to recognize them in the United Nations - and then have relations with them fall under the State Department.

Next - I would do away with National Parks, Forests, and the Bureau of Land Management.
The Constitution is very specific in regards to land owned by the federal government - and none of those are covered.
Control should be given to the states those lands are within.

Next - I would do away with every court system that is not under the Judicial Branch.
In every single one of those courts, the defendant is treated as guilty until proven innocent.
The biggest example of this abuse of power, is the IRS.  You have to go through their court system before you are allowed to defend yourself in the Judicial Branch.  During that time, you are likely to spend so much money fighting the government that you can't afford to take the case to the Judicial Branch level.

Congress is responsible for a lot of unnecessary "drama" that wastes taxes.
All we have to do is look at all the committees and hearings they have, which are focused on politics rather than actual work.

So I called your hand and you DELIVERED! My gosh you have given more than a  little thought to this. But I have a coupla questions. Isn't the purpose of the Bureau of Indian Affairs necessary to protect their interests? They have been screwed so very badly by "whites". Now I am ASSUMING that is the purpose of such a bureau. If it is part of the problem and not an attempt at a solution I fully agree with thee. Doing away with NATIONAL PARKS? OMG Walt what are you thinking? What National Park does your state have? I think of California's YOSEMITE! You don't mind fracking or cutting down trees to build shopping malls? What about the beautiful.National Forests in other states? You don't want any protection or preservation for them? Let the selfish greedy money-hungry SOB's have their way with them to make money? Many presidents acted to PRESERVE these national treasures. You would undo ALL OF THAT? All red states would have no forests. They'd invite in every and any land rapists to have their way with it for a price. That seems very evil to me m'dear. What court systems are NOT under the judicial branch? And why do you say defendants are treated as if they are guilty and must prove their innocence? Of course if the defendant is BLACK what you say is true. But if he/she is a bright white? C'mon Walt. Bright whites always have the advantage. And I don't understand what the IRS has to do with a murder case for example. You have to go through it before you get to the judicial system? That doesn't even almost make sense. I take all the blame for this. Once again I don't understand and I expect once again you will be able to show me the light the truth and the way. Thanks Walt! :) Happy Thursday to thee and thine! :)

Many federal (and state) agencies have their own court system.
If the IRS charges you with tax evasion - you have to appear before an IRS court.  And then go through the IRS appeals process.  Only after exhausting the IRS "court" system, are you allowed to plead the case before a Constitutionally authorized court.

Not only are these courts unconstitutional - they are a violation of the separation of powers, because these courts are under the Executive (not Judicial) branch.

If you want to keep National Parks/Forests ... you must amend the Constitution.
(Alternatively, you could reclassify those lands military reservations or ports.)
Ignoring the Constitution is what Presidents have done to create those lands.
Of course, it's also what is currently happening with the talk of making the District of Columbia a state.  
IMO-If government can ignore the Constitution whenever it wants ... so can anybody else (as well as any laws passed under the Constitution).

If nobody actually lived in DC, then it wouldn't require Statehood. They do, ergo those folks have been effectively disenfranchised with regards to the Senate. Wyoming and Montana have two Senators each - and DC has a higher population than both combined.

I agree with this.  The residential areas should be returned/given to the neighboring states. And leave the Capitol district a government only zone.  No one allowed to live there except the Presidential family and VP family. 

The (military) District of Columbia was specifically created so that no state had jurisdiction over the federal seat of government.

Since it is a military District, just do what we do for military citizens and their families who live on military bases or overseas.  They are citizens of whatever state they register residence in.  BAM!  Problem solved without violating the Constitution.

It would be far simpler just to give the land back to Maryland, and disburse the federal government.
We have the technology.  There is no reason for the the House and Senate to meet in a single location to do their business.  The Supreme Court and President should be moved to a location in the middle of the nation.

Then we can dismantle those buildings, and all the monuments, and use the materials to "build the wall".  HA!

Because of the District's unique character as the federal city, neither the Framers nor Con­gress accorded the inhabitants the right to elect Members of the House of Representatives or the Senate. In exchange, however, the District's resi­dents received the multifarious benefits of the national capital. As Justice Joseph Story noted in Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, "there can be little doubt, that the inhabi­tants composing [the District] would receive with thankfulness such a blessing, since their own importance would be thereby increased, their interests be subserved, and their rights be under the immediate protection of the represen­tatives of the whole Union." In effect, the Framers believed that the residents were "virtu­ally" represented in the federal interest for a strong, prosperous capital.

There have been a number of efforts to change this original design, including a proposed constitutional amendment (passed by Congress in 1977) that would have granted the District of Columbia congressional voting rep­resentation "as if it were a state." This amend­ment, however, was not ratified in the seven-year period established by Congress. Other proposals have included a retrocession of most, or all, of the District to Maryland-a plan that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1964 deemed impractical and unconstitutional-and the admission of Washington, D.C., to the Union as the fifty-first state.

I like it. :)

The Constitution expressly forbids statehood to D.C.? Are you a lover of preserves and sanctuaries for vanishing species? If we lived by the Constitution wouldn't the "arms" we are allowed to have be MUSKETS? I am serious. Are you pro/con preserving historical sites? Are you pro/con respecting the land and treating it kindly with an eye toward future users? Rape and pillage now and the future be dam*ed? That's what I get from this. I know I am limited in my view Walt but really I disagree with everything here. Remember I am one of the "little people" whose ancestry is one generation away from THE OLD COUNTRY. I am not the hoity toity hotsy totsy rich so my view is not from the same lofty perch as yours. I assume you're rich m'dear. No disrespect intended. But you do not talk as if you ever had to sweat paying bills. If you have then apologies for the wrong assumption. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Scott Fitzgerald had it right. The rich are different from you and me. You maybe aren'trich. I aren't. Thank you for your reply! :) This post was edited by RosieG at April 30, 2021 4:23 AM MDT

The Constitution doesn't say "muskets".  It says "arms".
If you look at the "arms" individuals back then owned, many had firearms that were superior to those of the military.

As I said before - all lands not specifically authorized under federal control in the Constitution, should be regulated by the states.  It is much easier for The People to hold politicians accountable, at the state level.  You want a state forest/park?  Get a few thousand people together and go to the state capitol.  

As a perspective of someone who grew up and worked in Oregon and Washington - there are more environmental issues solved by the legislatures of those states, than by the federal government.  Hell, Oregon cleaned up most of the Willamette River from toxic chemicals in a generation.  The federal government hasn't made a dent in cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, which has radioactive waste from the 1940s - and recently had a "storage tunnel" collapse.

Considering most of the abuses of treaties took place under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I don't think they are there to protect the people.

Besides, wouldn't giving them access to the United Nations protect them much better?
They would be able to argue any issues before international courts, rather than the courts of a country historically prejudiced against them.