The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools
Old March 9, 2008, 03:43 PM   #1
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,613
Who should have more power: State or Federal Government?

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?
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 04:08 PM   #2
Erik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
The Feds, who should use it relatively sparingly.
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective
Erik is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 04:13 PM   #3
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,613
Quote:
The Feds, who should use it relatively sparingly.
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?
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 04:15 PM   #4
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 04:28 PM   #5
Redworm
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 10, 2005
Posts: 3,372
Quote:
What about universal health care state wide that incorporates private owned sector that the goverment controls.
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.

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.

Quote:
since the feds won't use it responsibly it should remain in the states control as it was planned back around 1773 or so...
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.
Redworm is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 04:36 PM   #6
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
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.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 04:51 PM   #7
mvpel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2000
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 1,847
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.
__________________
Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, "Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!"
1 Samuel 13:19
mvpel is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 05:00 PM   #8
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
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.
Edward429451 is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 05:07 PM   #9
Waitone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 19, 2000
Posts: 2,904
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.
__________________
"Given a choice between good intentions and human nature, I'll go with human nature every time."--Me, 2002.
Waitone is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 05:12 PM   #10
Redworm
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 10, 2005
Posts: 3,372
Quote:
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.
Redworm is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 05:14 PM   #11
HKuser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 625
Quote:
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.
HKuser is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 05:16 PM   #12
hanno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2008
Posts: 320
Quote:
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.
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.
hanno is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 08:12 PM   #13
GoSlash27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 3,118
Quote:
According to the Constitution itself, the Federal government only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the states which created it.
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.
__________________
Bill of Rights
Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Not available in all states. Some restrictions apply.
GoSlash27 is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 08:16 PM   #14
DWARREN123
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2006
Location: BETWEEN TN & KY
Posts: 1,758
It should go in reverse order to size with a big dose of commone sense.
__________________
Have a nice day!
DWARREN123 is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 09:02 PM   #15
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,613
Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
That's a disturbing thought.
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 09:08 PM   #16
69 Impala
Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 25
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.
Quote:
"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
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.
__________________
Tommy
69 Impala is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 10:01 PM   #17
toybox99615
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2007
Location: Kodiak Alaska
Posts: 767
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.
toybox99615 is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 10:11 PM   #18
Tabsr
Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 44
State Law

The States cannot enact a law that is in violation of the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
"Politicians and Bureaucrats, depend very much on the complicity of their victims, and like criminals, are flummoxed when we don't play the victim role."
Tabsr is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 10:17 PM   #19
miboso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2007
Location: Real northern California
Posts: 504
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.
__________________
David
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of These United States of America, and to the Republic which it defines.
miboso is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 11:06 PM   #20
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,500
Quote:
Quote:
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.
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.
gc70 is offline  
Old March 10, 2008, 12:30 AM   #21
Hugh Damright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.
Hugh Damright is offline  
Old March 10, 2008, 12:56 AM   #22
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
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.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old March 10, 2008, 03:51 AM   #23
nobody_special
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2006
Location: Southwest US
Posts: 277
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...
nobody_special is offline  
Old March 10, 2008, 08:30 AM   #24
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waitone
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKuser
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 10, 2008, 10:39 AM   #25
homefires
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 8, 2007
Location: Deming New Mexico
Posts: 1,495
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!
homefires is offline  
 

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13797 seconds with 7 queries