Who should have more power: State or Federal Government?

Quote:
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.
Click to expand...
That is what the 13th amendment to the Constitution is for.
Click to expand...

But only as a consequence of
Mr. Lincoln's invasion of the South.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't for that "invasion" (a loaded term ), the seeming bemoaning of which is what I made response to, the Reconstruction Amendments would not have come into being. Apparently, some believe that they sprung into effect out of no cause.
 
The Fed should only have more power than the States in anything that is specifically documented as giving them power in the Constitution and BOR.

Education is not one of those... in fact, education is in the Peoples (parents) list of powers, not the Fed or the State. Parents still have control over their children's education. Some just choose to give that control to the State. My wife and I chose to homeschool partially because much of what the public school system teaches as "fact" is just not true. Brainwashing in the public school system is alive a well. Look at what is taught about firearms for instance!! Total crap, and we are not going to subject our children to those lies. Once they are adults they can make up their own minds about the controversial subjects.

I believe the 2nd is a right of the people that is to be protected by the Fed. The States agreed to place the protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the BOR when it was ratified and therefore should be held accountable to what it says... shall not be infringed. Apparently they all forgot?
 
Is this really a question??!!
You wonder Moderates are taking over the GOP
Click to expand...

1. Yes, it is. Words with a subject and a verb followed by a squiggly line with a dot under it is called a question in the English language.

2. No, I don't wonder (how) Moderates are taking over the GOP. I wonder what other people think or believe, no matter the "obvious". Not everybody has the same school of thought on politics even if it may be black and white.

3. I also wonder how many more drive-by posts you're going to place on peoples' threads. Your constant drive-by statements aren't conducive to discussion and don't provide any content. Then again, maybe I just need to keep from feeding the troll....

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

When humans are put into the most grave extremes, I can think of a simple saying: Where there's a will, there's a way...


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?
Click to expand...

Do you mean if a parent CANNOT afford to feed their child? I'm not implying the govt. to take away kids. I do assert that if a parent has chances to get a job to feed the child and doesn't do what it takes, then in some cases the child should be placed in a more stable home.

Anyway, back to State/Federal powers...

I believe the 2nd is a right of the people that is to be protected by the Fed. The States agreed to place the protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the BOR when it was ratified and therefore should be held accountable to what it says... shall not be infringed. Apparently they all forgot?
Click to expand...

Good question. I don't know the States' history enough to give you a straight answer. My guess is that when the states formed their own constitution, they tried to get cute and word it their own way. Little did they might have known, one of the deal-killer words that I've seen in state laws is "may" instead of "shall"...
 
I believe the 2nd is a right of the people that is to be protected by the Fed. The States agreed to place the protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the BOR when it was ratified and therefore should be held accountable to what it says... shall not be infringed. Apparently they all forgot?
Click to expand...
The USBOR was intended to protect the RKBA from federal infringement, that is what the States agreed to. They did not agree to place the protection of the RKBA in the USBOR i.e. in the federal government. The USBOR does not empower the federal government.
 
Do you mean if a parent CANNOT afford to feed their child? I'm not implying the govt. to take away kids. I do assert that if a parent has chances to get a job to feed the child and doesn't do what it takes, then in some cases the child should be placed in a more stable home.

Anyway, back to State/Federal powers...
Click to expand...
Oops, yea. Cannot. Mea culpa.

I'm not saying you implied it, sorry :o it's a thought that comes to mind for me from time to time. I would agree that if a parent can do the things necessary to feed a child and refuse to do so that the government - state or federal - should take action but I don't think it's fair to say that everyone can. I'd say that in many situations a parent without a social network to assist them might not have many options and that the system itself is a direct impedance to getting off of it.

But back to the state/federal issue....well, I asked before what guarantee do we have that the states will do the right thing? We really don't. There are plenty of states that today do things that many people within that very state disagree with.

I'm all for living by the Constitution but I think in this fast-paced world the Constitution is sorely lacking. There are a number of things the federal government has done without constitutional authorization that have been beneficial to the country and to the whole world. There's no authorization for NIH funding - though I believe there should be - and it has done amazing things for the advancement of human knowledge in additional to the practical applications of improving and even saving lives.

I don't necessarily have more faith in the fed than I have in the states but I also don't see any reason to have more faith in the states than in the fed. Point is, there are a number of circumstances in which a person cannot simply move to another state - it's not reasonable to suggest one leave their home, history, career, family and entire culture just because their state doesn't afford what they believe to be a basic right - and in some cases the issues at hand are so important to the overall scope of society that states simply don't or maybe even shouldn't have the authority to control.
 
Back to the original question:

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.
Click to expand...

There is obviously no 'Answer" - it's a toss-up.

From a practical perspective, favoring state or federal power usually boils down to individual issues and the positions of the federal and state governments. If you like the federal position on an issue, then you will probably want it to overrule a contrary state position. If the situation is reversed, you will want the state to have more power.

From a theoretical perspective, federal power means consistency, which can be a very positive thing in a mobile, modern society. OTOH, state power yields diversity and options that are otherwise stifled by federal uniformity.
 
In the true spirit of federalism, the state's can enact laws and regulate guns as they see fit. The 2nd Ammendment does not apply to the states, so they are free to do so anyway. I think the federal govt uses the interstate commerce clause to justify many powers that the federal govt should not have, such as regulating drugs.:barf: I'm a purist in the sense that if the Constitution does not grant the federal govt a certain power, then it does not have that power. But, since the 10th Ammendment has been trampled on and shoved under the rug during the last 50 years, I doubt we will ever get back to this scenario.
 
I think it comes down to this, which group would respond better to your complaints about how things are done, the state or the federal goverment.

I personally think it would be easier and more effiecent to deal with my state goverment than the feds.

Take a simple issues like traffic laws. A state law like Motorcyle hemelts. Here in PA the law was just changed in the last couple of years. Due to a great deal of personal lobbying by bike riders. They got the legistaltors attention much easier by riding to Harrisburg.

A blow for personal freedom (I wear a helmet, but that is my choice), now then if that had been a federal law how much harder would it have been to change.

Eliminate a lot of Federal programs, laws and agencies and you will see this country thrive again, the people will once again flex thier might. Take the power from the Feds with Term Limits and limits on thier staffs. Gut the Federal Goverment like a fish, turn off the air conditioning in the Capital and there Offices.
 
Here's an easy example of which is better to get things done...

Which is most likely to pass a law mandating "Shall Issue" CCWs, an individual state or the national government?

States should be able to decide the majority of things and the feds keeping their mouths shut.
 
We fought a civil war over this very question (slavery was a side issue.)
Click to expand...

Ummmm....OK, bob. I think this is common knowledge. How about providing some thoughts. Sure would like to hear some input...

TwoXForr, I basically agree with 99% of your post. If some citizens of a state were unhappy with the results of a law/ordinance that passes, it's generally easier to get things changed on a state level. I believe the peoples' voice would not only be heard more effectively, they would be more inclined to get involved in their states' politics....

There is obviously no 'Answer" - it's a toss-up.
Click to expand...

Thank you, gc70. In some cases I think you're right. I definitely lean to the majority of issues should be handled by the state or local govts...
 
Back to the original question.

If a state such as Illinios did ban all private firearms, that state would no longer have a militia. In the event of an invasion, the other states would bear a an unequal burden of defending a state which has no militia to defend itself. Could this be considered a breech of contract between the states (that contract being the US Constitution) ???
 
not necessarily; even without the militia Illinois would still have its National Guard

besides, the likelihood of an invasion is somewhere in the realm of slim to none and I think slim is on vacation :p
 
If a state such as Illinios did ban all private firearms, that state would no longer have a militia. In the event of an invasion, the other states would bear a an unequal burden of defending a state which has no militia to defend itself. Could this be considered a breech of contract between the states (that contract being the US Constitution) ???
Click to expand...

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government." -Presser v Illinois
 
Well, if Heller claimed that US citizens are militia and that handguns are militia weapons, I could see how that would fall in line with Presser and the court would just have to stay its course. But I think Heller claims that the Second Amendment empowers the federal government to protect our personal arms for personal use, and so it looks to overturn cases like Presser.
 
10 USC 311 states that US citizens are militia, and it's patently obvious that the standard-issue sidearm of the US Army is a militia weapon.

And the Miller case said such arms were typically "supplied by themselves," the people, so how would someone supply their own militia arms if possession of militia arms is prohibited?

So DC's position is untenable from both directions - individual rights on one side and maintenance of a militia on the other.

But the militia question is not at bar in Heller in any case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top