Local Government VS National Government: Part Deux

[KRoyal]

I’m just wondering what our country would be like if we no long ruled at the national level but at the local level, do you think it would be better or worse and why?

I'm really just wondering what it would be like i'm not very political myself and i'm not looking to rile anyone up so mods if this is Inappropriate please close and delete, But i'm just wondering.

 

[threegun]

I like the system in place now although I don't like the currant majority. If the country was run as intended, with State Law left to individual States unless it violates the Constitution, I would be content.

 

[gb_in_ga]

I’m just wondering what our country would be like if we no long ruled at the national level but at the local level, do you think it would be better or worse and why?

Depends on what you mean by "no longer ruled at the national level but at the local level".

If you mean NO rule at the national level, then the effect will be balkanization, as there would be NO national government to hold the states together. Not altogether a bad thing, other than there would be no common currency.

If what you mean is something like a confederacy government along the lines of the Constitution's predecessor (the Articles of Confederacy), well, the founding fathers found that arrangement to be less than satisfactory, as there were some things that HAVE to be done at the national level that weren't getting done. A better model was that of the Confederacy (minus the slavery thing, of course). They seemed to have gotten the idea, their model was actually pretty good (again, other than the slavery thing), having learned the lessons of the shortcomings of their 2 predecessors. It is too bad that they had to get tangled up in that war with a stronger neighbor right from the get-go (again, other than that slavery thing) and have their "experiment" in self government squashed. They were right in the perception that by that time the Federal government had already grown past the ideal "minimalist" size envisioned by the founders, and was about to increase even more. In that respect secession into a confederacy was the right thing to do -- again, other than that slavery thing.

 

[KRoyal]

All I meant was giving the local government(STATE) all the power to do as it see's fit, The federal government would be in place only for federal things like deplomacy with other nations and the one currency issure and other things as well... But for the most part giving most of the power to the local level of government to do as they see fit with laws in their state. It just bugs me that someone sitting in a cosy big house up on capital hill is granting laws and libertys to people in a state that maybe they have never been and knows anything about.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Sounds like you're describing an obscure and endangered form of government called a Constitutional Republic
Rich

 

[KRoyal]

Yep that would be what i'm talking about but i'll have to read up more on that because thats alot of info and its lunch time... See you guys after lunch.

 

[badbob]

I agree with Rich. I would like to at least see a repeal of the 17th A.
Senators at one time were appointed by the State Legislature instead of popular vote, ie more local control.

Amendment XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the Seventeenth Amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

badbob

 

[buzz_knox]

I agree with Rich. I would like to at least see a repeal of the 17th A.
Senators at one time were appointed by the State Legislature instead of popular vote, ie more local control.

Unfortunately, that would have resulted in TN having strictly Democratic senators for years as the Dems control our legislature. And the Dem candidates for Senator haven't been . . . stellar.

 

[gb_in_ga]

I would like to at least see a repeal of the 17th A.

That, and an amendment that closes the "commerce clause" loophole such that it means what the Founding Fathers originally meant rather than the perpetual open season with no bag limits for the Federal Government on anything and everything like what it has mutated into.

 

[gb_in_ga]

Unfortunately, that would have resulted in TN having strictly Democratic senators for years as the Dems control our legislature.

So, what you are saying is that the statewide electorate is voting one way, and the makeup of the state legislature is different? Sounds like redistricting is in order, your legislature doesn't accurately reflect your actual demographics.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Unfortunately, that would have resulted in TN having strictly Democratic senators for years as the Dems control our legislature.

Or, possibly, the result would have been a loss of the State Legislature by the Dems.

Glass doesn't have to be half empty.
Rich

 

[gb_in_ga]

Or, possibly, the result would have been a loss of the State Legislature by the Dems.

Yes, there's always that route. If the legislature won't appoint senators that the electorate actually want, then throw the bums out, or make them explain just why they think that their selection is so much better than what the electorate themselves want.

 

[Hugh Damright]

Our governments are designed for localism. If the Virginia Legislature passes a law that Virginians do not like, then we have recourse - we might elect a new State Legislature, or have a referendum to repeal the law; but if the US Congress passes a law that Virginians do not like, or if the SCOTUS legislates from the bench, and Virginians do not want that particular law in Virginia, then what is our recourse? Virginians cannot control the US government, we cannot vote out the Congress, or the President, or the SCOTUS, nor can Virginians change a national law by referendum. It would seem that if we are going to be ruled by the US government then Virginians' only recourse is nullification and secession. And with these rights denied, US rule is completely removed from free government.

 

[2ndamd]

I think it was Marburry v Madison that has set us on this nationalist heading for some time now. That was back when we were still trying to win the west.