This is why the federal government was intended to have limited, explicitly enumerated powers. Now if you so much as fart outdoors the feds claim it's interstate commerce and they have the right, nay, the obligation, to regulate.

That's not to say that interstate air travel is outside of the scope of the feds, but that there's so much scope creep in Congress that it's hard to focus on that come election season.

It's even worse, because Congress for years has been happily handing off it's responsibilities to the executive branch. It's to the point that it's barely controversial that the President can order the assassination or indefinite detention of an American citizen, if the President declares that citizen an enemy combatant in an undeclared war on an idea.

The idea of enumerated powers is in Article I, and it's made explicit in the tenth amendment that powers not delegated to the US are reserved for the states or the people. The implication is that it's desirable for the US to have only the powers that require a federal government, as opposed to acting as a catch-all to dictate policy for the states.

Article I of the US Constitution deals with Congress. Section 1 is a introduction and establishes the House and the Seante. Sections 2-6 deal with how to elect congressman and the "floor rules" basically. Section 7 is how a bill becomes a law.

Section 8 specifically lists the powers reserved to Congress. Neither the Executive branch nor the Supreme Court is given this treatment. (Side note: patents are specifically listed here: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;")

Section 9 deals with a few other things such as immigration, ex post facto laws, taxes and spending money. Section 10 is rules on what states can't do.

Furthermore, Amendment 10 reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The government does have power to step out of this specific list, due to the "necessary and proper" clause, but in general this used to be considered a clause where the government can do whatever is "necessary and proper" to exercise their duty to govern within their enumerated powers. This is spelled out by Justice Marshall in McCulloch vs. Maryland: "If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect."

However, later on in his opinion he also states: "This Government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise so long as our system shall exist."

This has always been a tricky question. There is a limit on Congress' power. While it is not limited simply to those listed in the Constitution, everybody that I know thinks Congress has overstepped their boundaries countless times.

The trouble is that we the people are no longer invested in our government and don't properly hold them to account. We elect people who benefit me the most, as opposed to the country. This is normal, but when you couple that with a court system that is overloaded and an executive branch that is, frankly, out of control and insanely drunk with power, bad government happens.

Maybe the fix is to be able to elect representatives that represent us on more finely grained issues (perhaps even including which issues we elect reps for).

Imagine being able to break things down so that we elect economic & taxation reps separately from the people who make laws. Sure, there's already some split between the House & Senate, but they're not exactly compartmentalized in the way I'm envisioning right now.

A solution would be to make sure that representatives who have initiatives most people really disagree with (as opposed to simply voting for them) don't get another term. Lamar Smith would be a good example. Takes a bit of coordination, but it'd probably be effective enough.