Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would not like my freedom to be defined by a small group of State legislators without being protected by a strong Federal government. I may distrust government because it can be rented by big money but I know big business is inimical to me and my freedom because it rents government for its own profits.
It was done. In fact, it was the original idea that states know and do best. Then Shay's Revolution helped restore a bit of the insanity by replacing Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution.
People have the right to self determination. And to acheive that, they need to be able to govern themsleves locally. Transferring power to a far way bureaucracy is foolish and only inhibits freedom. Practically no one in America favors authoritarian rule in other countries, yet they seem to favor it when it happens in the United States.
Californians shouldn't be making decisions for North Carolinians and vice versa. It's not a radical idea. It's common sense.
People have the right to self determination. And to acheive that, they need to be able to govern themsleves locally. Transferring power to a far way bureaucracy is foolish and only inhibits freedom. Practically no one in America favors authoritarian rule in other countries, yet they seem to favor it when it happens in the United States.
Californians shouldn't be making decisions for North Carolinians and vice versa. It's not a radical idea. It's common sense.
Then how far do you want to go with local governance? City level? Why should a few in Austin dictate the whims of people in Houston or Amarillo or Howe?
While you focus on the 10th Amendment, you ignore the other 26 Amendments and the body of the Constitution.
Creationism is not science, it is religious doctrine. As such, it violates Amendment 1, as it uses State resources to establish religion.
Under the constitution, when laws of the federal government conflict with state laws, federal laws prevail.
Each state, has the right to institute universal health care, as Massachusetts has done. What's at issue is whether the federal government can under the 'promote the general welfare' clause and the elastic clause.
Odd? I've been all around the country and it doesn't appear destroyed.
The General Welfare cause is a charge to the government to do what is in the given powers to it.
Not beyond though it's been greatly taken there, sadly.
It's not Free Reign to do what Congress desires.
That's a general comment not directed towards you.
Then how far do you want to go with local governance? City level? Why should a few in Austin dictate the whims of people in Houston or Amarillo or Howe?
the states are a good place to start. slowly cutting all the federal money and all the strings that come with it. some states might further devolve power to the counties and on to individuals
the states are a good place to start. slowly cutting all the federal money and all the strings that come with it. some states might further devolve power to the counties and on to individuals
No they are not. A good place to start will be people themselves. Heck, cities today are larger than the entire union at its founding. For someone who distrusts government, it is illogical to propose a belief in government, at any level. Sorry, but the founders were wary of state government abuses in the same capacity as federal. Why aren't you?
And how was he able to do such? Maybe explain to the fine folks about the communist FDR and his "Court Packing" that allowed him to push through all of his garbage.
I just love it when you reactionaries call FDR, a member of one of the most aristocratic and wealthy families in the nation, a "communist." It just is an illustration of how bankrupt their ideology is.
His programs prevented an uprising from the masses.
the whole purpose of the constitution was to limit the power of the federal govt.
That is an utter historical nonsense. If anything the opposite is true, the Madison Conspiracy meeting in secret under the guise of reforming the Articles of Confederation was actually a successful plan to establish a strong central government to promote to the common defense (see Shay's Rebellion) and to promote the general welfare (see inability to compel taxation)!
While the Constitution certainly places limits upon the power of the federal government it also grants significant powers (see the Supremacy Clause) If anything the ratification of the Constitution and the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation ended the primacy of the states in deference to the national government.
I just love it when you reactionaries call FDR, a member of one of the most aristocratic and wealthy families in the nation, a "communist."
If anything Roosevelt saved capitalism from socialism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
