Who should have more power: State or Federal Government?

[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.

[HKuser]

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

But only as a consequence of

Mr. Lincoln's invasion of the South.

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.

[coat4gun]

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?

[Shane Tuttle]

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

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.

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?

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?

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"...

[Hugh Damright]

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?

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.

[Redworm]

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...

Oops, yea. Cannot. Mea culpa.

I'm not saying you implied it, sorry 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.

[gc70]

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.

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.

[Redneck with a 40]

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.

[Shadow1198]

The PEOPLE.

[TwoXForr]

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.

[Hkmp5sd]

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.