Can you pass this test- if it was updated?

WHAT GUMMINT DO          West Virginia Diploma Test - 1931 Jodi Lou sent me this 1931 West Virginia Elementary School Diploma Test.  You can download the entire thing (,pdf) HERE.  Of course it will elicit the usual comparisons between then and now; the older you are the harsher the comparison.  But, this is what struck me the most.  Look at the Geography section.  The emphasis on the local economy and West Virginia itself hearkens back to a time when people saw themselves as citizens of their state first, and Americans second.  When Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Army of the Potomac in 1861,  the Virginian rejected the command  on the day after Virginia seceded.   It was with Virgina, he felt, that his sacred honor dictated he must follow.  And what a wonderful notion it was, federalism.  It meant that if the state you lived in wasn't being governed to your satisfaction, you could vote with your feet and move to another. It was what the framers anticipated. All that ended with the election of FDR in 1932. Yes, you can still  vote with your feet, but to little avail, since the Federals and their courts dictate what the states may, or may not do.    We have chained ourselves to a central government, so that today we are reduced to debating  passage of New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s  “21st Century WPA Act” to reinstate the FDR's New Deal employment program.  Laut's estimated cost  —   through 2013?  — $250 billion!   I am positive Lautenberg would have failed this West Virginia test. Here a 1910 test from Washington state.

Romney’s Federalism

Romney’s Federalism

“ It was then that Governor Romney abruptly turned the tables, challenging his questioner’s own understanding of constitutional law— to be specific, the law laid down in a constitution that is both seven years older than the federal one and, under the GOP’s oft-claimed (but rarely practiced) small-government allegiance, more pertinent to the matter of health care. Mr. Wallace is a Beltway habitué. That he seemed nonplussed by Romney’s retort is to be expected. In Washington, there is nothing but Washington. When they talk about “the government” they are thinking only of our soon-to-be $17 trillion–in–the–red collosus. What is surprising, though, is how little the other candidates on the stage seemed to grasp what Romney was talking about, notwithstanding their chest-pounding about slashing the size of government.  [Andrew C. McCarthy: Romney’s Federalism]   ” Mr. Wallace is a Beltway habitué. That he seemed nonplussed by Romney’s retort is to be expected. In Washington, there is nothing but Washington. Is that great, or what?!  But there's more (prefaced by the author with "Don’t get me wrong. I’m no more convinced that Governor Romney bleeds Tenth Amendment red than ... " “ He may have landed on the Massachusetts constitution more out of necessity than conviction. But land there he did, and it just might save him. To make this argument, the governor, who is clearly a sharp guy, has had to wrap his brain around the principle of federalism and what it portends: concepts of state sovereignty and limited central government in a pluralistic republic. George Let’s put health care to the side. Say a governor and state legislature had enacted a scheme to establish a state religion, or at least to advantage one religion over others. One could argue that this was — or was not — unwise policy. It certainly seems as hostile to liberty as the idea of coercing a citizen to buy a commodity as a condition of citizenship. Yet, for the first 160 years of governance under the federal constitution, there would have been nothing objectionable about it under U.S. law. Until the Supreme Court suddenly decided to “incorporate” the Establishment Clause against the states, the First Amendment was no bar. The federal government, as Jefferson put it, was “interdicted from intermeddling” in matters of religion — religion was an issue left to the states and their citizens, and we trusted them to handle it responsibly. That is the way our system is supposed to work. The federal government has a few discrete areas of national concern to regulate. The rest belong to the states and the people, to regulate or not as they see fit. In a free society, that means decisions on most matters of community life get made by the community that has to live with them — and pay for them. In a pluralistic society, that means we could have 50 different ways of doing things — meaning that if you find yourself in a state that is foolish enough to mandate the purchase of health insurance subsidized by taxes or penalties, you are free to move to some state that isn’t. [full] Romney's still way too eastern establishment for me, but would I think have done well to have explained himself earlier, the way McCarthy just did.  As it is, we all need grounding once in a while; Good article.