Who should have more power: State or Federal Government?

S

Shane Tuttle

Staff
Wife and I were on our way home yesterday and the discussion of powers of the government came up. She thinks the States should have more power to govern the people than the Federal level. I agree to a general extent. That's the broad, general question I have....

What conditions do each have the power over the other?

It got me thinking...What, say, Illinois bans ALL guns. Not just semis. All of them. The elected officials passed the bill in the House, Senate, Governor's desk ,the whole gambit to amend their state constitution.

There are quite a few people here that want the states to decide what's best for their residents. So, do you think the Federal government should intervene and override the state laws? Expand on this basic rights issue if you'd like or use another example to debate.

Plug in any social issue if you'd like to spark a debate. I would like to hear any debate with the exception of gay marriage and marijuana. This has been rehashed to no end. What about universal health care state wide that incorporates private owned sector that the goverment controls. To me, that's not Socialism. It's facsism(sp). Clearly not the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness...

What say you?
 
The Feds, who should use it relatively sparingly.
Click to expand...

OK.

So if the Supreme Court rules in a couple of months against our favor and the 2A becomes a "collective" right not an individual, do you think Idaho's stricter stance on the BOR is null and void?
 
since the feds won't use it responsibly it should remain in the states control as it was planned back around 1773 or so...
Brent
 
What about universal health care state wide that incorporates private owned sector that the goverment controls.
Click to expand...
There are various levels of "universal healthcare" and only the most extreme actually requires government control of the whole enchilada.

As for your questions, it depends on what kind of power you're referring to.

Unfortunately the two issues you named are two of the most important, in my opinion. :p

But let's use education instead. States should have a good amount of control over their education system but there's a line to be drawn where children are denied knowledge or taught certain things just because their parents believe in them.

Without any federal oversight and some kind of standardization there's no way to ensure that certain states are actually doing things as well as other states and there is no reason a child in Nebraska should be denied the same quality of education as a child in California.

In fact, there are quite a few things for which the federal government should have more authority to override the states. States should not be allowed to step between a woman and her physician, states should not be allowed to completely privatize education and do away with all public schooling, states should not be allowed to give a pass on environmental laws and allow companies within their borders to pollute like mad.

There are plenty of things the federal government should not be allowed to do as well but leaving it all up to the states just doesn't cut it.

since the feds won't use it responsibly it should remain in the states control as it was planned back around 1773 or so...
Click to expand...
We have nothing to guarantee that the states will use power any more responsibly than the federal government. There were plenty of states in the late 1700s that used their powers to do some pretty nasty things and there are plenty of states today that are eager to trample on rights because the majority of the population wants to.
 
Prior to Mr. Lincoln's invasion of the South, the states operated pretty much as independent countries. They had a great deal of power. About as much power as when the founding fathers created the federal government.
 
According to the Constitution itself, the Federal government only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the states which created it. So the powers of the states are theoretically undefined and expansive while those of the federal government are narrowly defined and limited.
 
The people. Oh wait, that wasn't part of the question. In that case, the State. Though the feds would still corrupt them with their program bribes like is the case today. The County Sheriffs supposedly could band together and stop the State's abuses, but their on the payroll now too.:(
 
Don't like where the state draws a line? Fine, pack up and leave going to a state more to your liking.

Don't like where the federales draw a line? Tough! Should states control education, for example? Watch what will happen in California as the courts attempt to throw a blanket over home schooling. Now envision that same control at a national level. How will the response differ in the two scenarios.

The founding fathers considered the states to be laboratories of liberty, for good reason.
 
Prior to Mr. Lincoln's invasion of the South, the states operated pretty much as independent countries. They had a great deal of power.
Click to expand...

You mean they had power to determine who was master and slave, citizen and subject, man or chattel property. Probably not the best situation to which to return.
 
According to the Constitution itself, the Federal government only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the states which created it. So the powers of the states are theoretically undefined and expansive while those of the federal government are narrowly defined and limited.
Click to expand...

Bingo! The founding fathers had it right. There are some things only the Feds can do like national defense. Most things should be decided and paid for at the state level.
 
According to the Constitution itself, the Federal government only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the states which created it.
Click to expand...
Except for the 14th Amendment, which charges the Federal government with ensuring the entire BoR to all Americans regardless of their state of residence.
There is disagreement about whether there *should be* a 14th amendment, but nobody can argue that it doesn't exist.
 
But let's use education instead. States should have a good amount of control over their education system but there's a line to be drawn where children are denied knowledge or taught certain things just because their parents believe in them.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll agree to this....on one condition. ALL of my property tax money goes to the public, private, or home school of my choice. No kids like me? Perfect...I don't pay a dime. That would be a good for me.

Don't like where the federales draw a line? Tough! Should states control education, for example? Watch what will happen in California as the courts attempt to throw a blanket over home schooling. Now envision that same control at a national level. How will the response differ in the two scenarios.
Click to expand...

That's a disturbing thought.
 
I believe state governments should have their voice restored in Congress, by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. It's redundant to have both a Senate and House when both are elected by citizens of the state. Now, states must deal with federal mandates without first having a voice in the the legislature.

Sure, sometimes the Senate and House oppose each other on bills, but not very often since they are answering to the same people who elected them.

I believe in the Thomas Jefferson side of the Jefferson-Hamilton arguement that the Constitution limits the power of the federal government. It's amazing that the Tenth Amendment seems tossed to the side.
"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."-Tenth Amendment
Click to expand...

I think it is simple and straight forward, but when you have politicians that don't know what the word "is" is, then the federal government is allowed unlimited power and states are merely its executors.

When I heard that the federal government restricted the size of the tank on the toliet in your house, I wondered, "Why do we need state governments?" Fortunately that federal restriction also prevents politicians from flushing all our liberties down the drain at one time.
 
baiting the argument

"OK, I'll agree to this....on one condition. ALL of my property tax money goes to the public, private, or home school of my choice. No kids like me? Perfect...I don't pay a dime. That would be a good for me." {Tuttle8}

Are you trying to bait the argument that is based on paying only for what you use as there is no need for thing like providing for the common good? A great topic for another thread.
 
State Law

The States cannot enact a law that is in violation of the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment.
 
Tabsr, while I certainly agree with you, expect some here to chime in with an argument that the 2nd is not enforced on the states.
 
Don't like where the state draws a line? Fine, pack up and leave going to a state more to your liking.
Click to expand...
Not everyone has that option, though.
Click to expand...

Nice; if an option is not as readily available to some as to others, just take the option away from everyone.

It seems that when people have hot-button issues (guns, universal healthcare, abortion, education), they are suddenly willing to force their preferred views onto everyone else by using the federal government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top