it's certainly not the federal government b/c it's not listed anywhere in the constitution.
The federal constitution doesn't enumerate interstate highways, education, energy, wildlife or forest conservation, national park creation and operation, environmental protection, labor and occupational safety enforcement, and dozens of other things.
Would you get rid of those things?
YES
Thanks for your honesty. Most people only selectively invoke literal "enumerated powers" argument. When faced with the things I mentioned above, they backpeddle and say "that's different" (for fear of being irrelevant).
interstate highways are completely constitutional: commerce clause was originally intended to grant the federal government authority to settle disputes between entities across state lines
But, now I'm detecting some backpeddling. (Chuckle.).
There were no disputes between states when interstate highways were created. They were created just because the federal government was in the best position to manage it.
The same argument could be made for consumer protections. That consolidating and standardizing protections reduces cross-state disputes and enhances commerce by making commerce more predictable.
national parks should be abolished, the land sold off to private individuals/companies, ...
Education [too]. ...
the EPA [too] ...
labor laws like wage laws and OSHA [too].
Good. I'm glad to help readers contextualize your remarks on consumer protections.
It's easy to get all goose-bumply with Jingoist rhetoric. But, when people realize how that's either not consistently applied (or what it means when it is) the tingly feeling tends to go away rather quickly.
The prospect of irrelevancy has that effect on people.
·