Who should have more power: State or Federal Government?

[Hugh Damright]

What, say, Illinois bans ALL guns.

I think that would go beyond an intrastate affair and become a union/federal affair. On the other hand, if they banned some guns, or required trigger locks, I don't see how that could interfere with the other States, with the Union, or with federal powers.

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.

I do not believe that a limited federal government can have a general power to intervene in all matters. Nor do I believe that a limited federal government can have such a broad and general power as "protector of rights". I think that federal powers to intervene and override state law should be limited and enumerated powers, and that any such powers must be freely delegated by the States.

 

[Crosshair]

My feeling is that the states should take care of their internal matters and all the fed should have authority to do is ensure that the states do not deny people their rights on a basic sense.

The federal government should take care of things like national defense and interstate commerce. Ensuring the interstate system is maintained and settling disputes between the states, and establishing basic trade standards is about all that should be done. Establishing MINIMUM standards is what they should be doing.

Personally, the best thing I feel that we can do to give the states back the power they lost is by repealing the 17th amendment and allow the state government to elect the Senators. Can you imagine the Fed trying to pull off something like withholding interstate highway funding unless the drinking age is 21 or the RealID act when those senators have to go back and face, not millions of people who don't keep track of these things that much, but a few hundred angry state legislators who now have to deal with the pile of crap that the Fed just handed them. (Run-on sentence, I know.) They would be quickly heading to the unemployment line.

In the end, the people will still elect the senators via electing their state representatives.

 

[nobody_special]

Lately, I've been thinking that the most power should be with the individual, and not with any government (or corporation, for that matter).

That said, I tend to prefer more legislative power in the federal government, simply so there is uniformity of law. The problem with that is it takes away from the sense of self-government, and at any rate, the 14th amendment would take care of my concerns if individual rights were given more respect, and government power a little less.

Or maybe we just need a House of Repeal...

 

[Al Norris]

I agree with the idea that the 17th needs to be repealed and that the power of the Senate needs to be returned to the States.

The original idea of balancing the will of the people with the will of States is still a viable idea.

Additionally, I would like to have clause 1 of Art. I, sect 8, clarified (e.g. provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States). As it now stands, this clause has been determined to mean a general and limitless legislative power with all the remaining clauses of this section, relegated to the status of mere (non-exhaustive) examples.

Those two things would do much to curtail this federal beast.

Don't like where the state draws a line? Fine, pack up and leave going to a state more to your liking.

Not everyone has that option, though.

Au Contraire, mon dieu! You simply choose not to exercise that freedom.

Prior to Mr. Lincoln's invasion of the South, the states operated pretty much as independent countries. They had a great deal of power.

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.

A rather disingenuous statement, considering we are not talking of doing away with the affected amendments (13th, 14th and 15th).

The idea of returning this country to its core concepts is always intriguing, but not without many pitfalls, and should be viewed in a critical manner. Many of the Federal programs and departments can be taken over by the States, yet, many could not be, without cooperation amongst the individual States. Some, would still be best supervised by the fed.gov.

Too, it can be observed that some States are indeed abusive of its citizens civil rights, hence the need for the 14th to remain in place. However, I would posit that the P&I clause needs to be recognized as part of this amendment and selective incorporation needs to die an ignoble death.

 

[homefires]

Without a doubt the states should have sovereign powers! They sadly relinquish them for the Socialist programs dangled by the Feds.
:barf:
:barf:

If the federal gov would go away tomorrow, some states would make it and some would not! Places like New Mexico that have little industry would find it a tough time but would make it. Places like New York with so many people on the social systems would crap out I think!

 

[TacticalDefense1911]

This country was founded with the idea that the people and the states should have the majority of power. Without a doubt the states should have the majority of the power. This country would be a better place if we would go back to this very principle. Hopefully, some day we will have a Republican in office that remembers this very important part of the Republican parties ideology.

 

[mvpel]

Not everyone has that option, though.

Actually, everyone has that option. Everyone.

Exercising that option is simply more difficult for some people than it is for others.

Consider an old friend of mine, for example - she snuck out of Ceaucescu's Romania via forged papers, very tense train trips, and forest deer trails with not much more than the clothes on her back. She'd scoff at the notion that someone in the US "doesn't have the option" to relocate to another state.

Unlike many other places around the world over the course of history and up into today there's nobody at the border of California waiting to imprison or kill you if you try to leave.

Might you have to work for minimum wage in a menial job in a Free State where the unemployment rate is effectively zero? Maybe for a very short time until you get your feet on the ground and start up a business unencumbered by the vast labyrinth of regulation and fees imposed by your former state of residence.

My friend Keith Murphy moved to New Hampshire about three years ago and after spending time tending and managing bars for other businesses now owns his own bar in downtown Manchester. Another guy I know finally gave up trying to work the corrupt licensing system in Michigan and will be moving to New Hampshire soon.

 

[TacticalDefense1911]

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.

That is what the 13th amendment to the Constitution is for.

 

[Redworm]

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.

I agree. In fact I'll take it a step further and point out that I fully support vouchers and school choice. That money should attached to the child, not the district in which the child lives.

 

[Redworm]

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.

No, I'm just pointing out that some people don't have as many options as the rest.

Au Contraire, mon dieu! You simply choose not to exercise that freedom.

Yes, I can choose to move to another state (until the Marine Corps orders me to move to California) but the point is that many people don't. If you're poor and barely able to keep a roof over your head or feed your children it's not so easy to just up and move to another state.

 

[copenhagen]

States need more power. To each his own. At least people can move to the state that best suits their values.

United States of America

not

Federal Government of America

 

[TwoXForr]

Redworm

Please Clarify this

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.

Me personally I feel as though the Feds should only have the power when it comes to defense, pollution (does not stop at the borders) and interstate commerce. (Probabaly a few other things that cross state line and are linked together and unable to be untangled, labels on ceral boxes, medicines and such)

 

[gc70]

If you're poor and barely able to keep a roof over your head or feed your children it's not so easy to just up and move to another state.

Absolutely true, but there are two sides to every coin. If you believe that a struggling person lives in a state with less desirable attributes (however you define them), then it appears compassionate to impose a 'better' federal solution on that state. If the person already lives in a state with desirable attributes, which are swept away by the imposition of different federal standards, the picture looks different.

And who gets to decide which standards should be imposed on everyone by the federal government?

 

[Redworm]

Redworm

Please Clarify this

Well it could refer to the usual thing everyone thinks I'm referring to but I'll take the alternate route and say that schools in New England should not be allowed to teach children that the Civil War was initiated to free the slaves.

Me personally I feel as though the Feds should only have the power when it comes to defense, pollution (does not stop at the borders) and interstate commerce. (Probabaly a few other things that cross state line and are linked together and unable to be untangled, labels on ceral boxes, medicines and such)

Out of curiosity, what do you feel about the federal government's authority over the internet? It certainly goes beyond state borders.

I'm not arguing anything, just curious. I'm still fuzzy on the concept myself with the exception of free speech issues. Mainly referring to e-commerce.

Absolutely true, but there are two sides to every coin. If you believe that a struggling person lives in a state with less desirable attributes (however you define them), then it appears compassionate to impose a 'better' federal solution on that state. If the person already lives in a state with desirable attributes, which are swept away by the imposition of different federal standards, the picture looks different.

And who gets to decide which standards should be imposed on everyone by the federal government?

Not saying it's right, just pointing out that moving to a different state can be extremely difficult for many people and for some it could be damn near impossible without putting children on the street.

 

[mvpel]

Not saying it's right, just pointing out that moving to a different state can be extremely difficult for many people and for some it could be damn near impossible without putting children on the street.

Absurd hyperbole.

There is enough of a "safety net" in this country provided by both private and public programs, and there's enough opportunity for able-bodied people willing to work, especially in states that aren't saddled with abusive and costly government and regulations, that relocating is far from "damn near impossible" for anyone.

The only question is whether you're more or less finicky than a Cuban boat person or a Mexican migrant when it comes to your lifestyle, and whether that'd be more or less tolerable than living as a tax-slave to a bankrupt state.

 

[SilentHitz]

In short, the states...the feds screw up everything too much as it is...IMHO

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Yes, I can choose to move to another state (until the Marine Corps orders me to move to California) but the point is that many people don't. If you're poor and barely able to keep a roof over your head or feed your children it's not so easy to just up and move to another state.

And yet, flocks of homeless people make the trek across the U.S. to be pampered by "San Francisco's Soup Kitchen"(arbitrary term).

Quoted by Toybox:b

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.

No. I'm not baiting. Only providing the opinion that my property taxes going to public schools is a form of income redistribution if I don't have kids that make use of the money or at least have the funding available to go to the school of my choosing for my kids.

It is a great topic for another thread. So, my question to you is: Are you trying to bait the argument that it should?
I've had another thread that quickly went down the crapper and nothing was done about it by mods except moving the blatently obvious to another currently discussed issue. So, to make a en passant statement to reply....I see no harm....yet. It does tie in somewhat due to the discussion of if the state should control education or local. Granted, I was inititating topic between federal/states' powers, but nonetheless...

I agree. In fact I'll take it a step further and point out that I fully support vouchers and school choice. That money should attached to the child, not the district in which the child lives.

You cannot be serious.......WE AGREE? I must take a breather...

I agree with the idea that the 17th needs to be repealed and that the power of the Senate needs to be returned to the States.

The original idea of balancing the will of the people with the will of States is still a viable idea.

Additionally, I would like to have clause 1 of Art. I, sect 8, clarified (e.g. provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States). As it now stands, this clause has been determined to mean a general and limitless legislative power with all the remaining clauses of this section, relegated to the status of mere (non-exhaustive) examples.

Antipitas, this is what's been racking my brains for some time. This very statement basically sums up my questions of debate on this thread. Thanks for enlightening the subject for I'm just an average Joe that isn't the most elequent of "speakers" on the net...

 

[Redworm]

And yet, flocks of homeless people make the trek across the U.S. to be pampered by "San Francisco's Soup Kitchen"(arbitrary term).

True, but again, it gets a little more difficult when the life of one's child hangs in the balance.

In some cases I'd say if a parent can afford to feed their child then the child should be raised by a different set of parents who is more than capable of doing so but the idea of the government taking kids away based on income just seems a little...I dunno. Heartless?

Maybe it would work but would it be right? No idea..

You cannot be serious.......WE AGREE?

Hey, my head's not ALWAYS in the clouds.

 

[xd9fan]

Is this really a question??!!
You wonder Moderates are taking over the GOP

 

[TwoXForr]

Well as I understand it the Feds do have a great deal to say about the Internet, but so do the States have laws regulating it too. It is a true tar baby, but I would love to see one standard across the board for regulation. If the States could get together a legistraltive conference or something.

(I know there exsist The Interstate Compact when it comes to letting Parolees be supervised by other states then where they committed thier crime and did thier intial time. This applies to a guy who might go on vacation, gets arrested for DUI but then returens to thier own state to work and live, but is then supervised by their home state.)

And make thier laws uniform deciding who will do what in regards to an infraction of the code. The Feds could back out then except in cases where the internet company is based overseas.