Bio not provided
I for one WOULD deny the need for a federal government. The voluntary compact (a.k.a. the united States Constitution) specifies in article VII that the agreement is between the several states. Ergo, the federal government has no say in determining the limits of its own power.
Upon the events of early 1861 in which several states, in legal elections, voted to rescind their ratification of the aforementioned agreement. A deranged, mass-murdering psychopath waged a vicious war of genocide, rape, torture, and murder against the Citizens of said states.
What Lincoln's armies couldn't steal, they burned. Rather than suffer the death of every man, woman, and child, the Citizens of those (former) states threw up their hands and cried "uncle!... okay, okay, the sky IS red... whatever you say! just stop killing our children!"
After the war, during the blackest stain in the history of Washington's [now illegitimate] government (a.k.a. "reconstruction") the value that wasn't stolen by Lincoln's army of criminals, conscripts, thugs and '48ers, was stolen by the carpetbaggers, politicians, and [blech] scalawags (think Bill Haslam, et al).
There is an unbroken chain of events leading directly from the McClean farm in Appomattox, to the coercive, intrusive, terrorist-state that is washington's government today... So YES, I see no need for Washington, and would be much happier with 50 (or 5,000) separate nations on the soil of the North American continent.
3 years ago on Esquire: Lies and Race-Baiting to Promote Central Power