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.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When you state is owned lock stock and barrel by coal mine interests it is damned hard to implement meaningful mine safety. When your state is hell bent on depriving the rights of classes of individuals, it becomes necessary to look for relief from a higher power. When your police department is out of control, abusive and corrupt, some greater outside force may be the only alternative.
.
Everything you state also applies to the federal government. Federal Government has given us slavery, denied women the right to vote, illegally incarcerated people with Japanese names, is trying to force us to buy health insurance, and many many other sins.
Their is way more cronyism in the federal government than anywhere else. Crony Capitalism is rampant. Just read the news.
And let's don't get started on the multitude of Federal LE out of control situations.
That always confusing me. If the Federal government shouldn't chose one's "life-style" choices then what right does any government have for making such choices? This is a nation, with a free flow of people, information and ideas which are not limited by state boundaries, if it is abhorrent for the federal government to legislate then why on earth is it appropriate for a state to. Your argument lacks any logical consistency.
Read it carefully. I said NO government should make lifestyle choices for us. NO government has the right to tell me what to eat, drink or smoke.
I then said if we HAVE TO HAVE government making those choices, I would rather it be local than federal.
I don't understand how many seem to ignore the fact that the individual states were relinquishing their authority to a higher power for the common good of "We the People" and establishing the state's "Union" under the authority of the federal government as stated in the constitution.
How can many not grasp this very clear and direct concept as stated in the preamble?
I think we all understand this. We all agree that the states agreed to relinquish some of their authority to a federal government.
Where we disagree is how much of that authority they were relinquishing. I seriously doubt that the founding fathers envisioned the power now residing in the federal government. The power to tell us we have to buy health insurance. The power to tell us how fast we can drive on a freeway. The power to tell us we cannot smoke flavored cigarettes. etc, etc.
Cut off the flow of money. That is the first step in regaining control.
Yes! Money is power. Federal revenue sharing is like cancer on crack cocaine.
Quote:
Public and private education existed at the time the Constitution was written, but it was not mentioned as a power of the federal government, because that power rests solely with the several States
.
The Feds should have nothing to do with education. No controls. No subsidies.
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?
Ideally, government should be as local as possible. State government should respect the interests and reflect the will of the people, but in especially large states like Texas and California, there should be more local control and less interference from state government. But it has to start with removing power from the federal government first. Government should always be restrained by the people and the larger the government becomes then the more difficult it becomes for the people to take back control.
And additionally all people have the inherent right to self determination and that means that people should always have the right to break away from governments, whether that be at the state level or at the national level.
tort should be left to the states. i would hope that most states would begin to address this but it isn't a federal issue
Which is how it is right now and yet, the anti-health care reform elements are quick to point to Tort Reform as a federal measure. I'm assuming you're not among them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
Ideally, government should be as local as possible. State government should respect the interests and reflect the will of the people, but in especially large states like Texas and California, there should be more local control and less interference from state government. But it has to start with removing power from the federal government first. Government should always be restrained by the people...
All that is simply based on wishful thinking. The reality was tried following independence and the people fell on their face. It is why the US Constitution came about, and transferred more power into the hands of the central government. States proved their incompetence at assuring freedoms to the people, and gave more power to the Federalists. And that was at a time when the entire nation had fewer people than many cities today.
There would be 50 experiments, if the Progressive Era politics at the beginning of the last century, had not pursued eliminating the States voice from the table in Washington DC.
The States have not had a voice, except for the Supreme Court, since Senators no longer represent the States best interest.
How can a Senator that is suppose to represent their State, constantly give their State rights away?
The check & balance was broken and it has slowly lead to what we have now, with an acceleration in the past few decades to smash the US Constitution.
There would be 50 experiments, if the Progressive Era politics at the beginning of the last century, had not pursued eliminating the States voice from the table in Washington DC.
The States have not had a voice, except for the Supreme Court, since Senators no longer represent the States best interest.
Why, because the power to senate goes through the people as opposed to "rulers" of the state? I'm glad that atrocity is long gone.
Which is how it is right now and yet, the anti-health care reform elements are quick to point to Tort Reform as a federal measure. I'm assuming you're not among them?
All that is simply based on wishful thinking. The reality was tried following independence and the people fell on their face. It is why the US Constitution came about, and transferred more power into the hands of the central government. States proved their incompetence at assuring freedoms to the people, and gave more power to the Federalists. And that was at a time when the entire nation had fewer people than many cities today.
In addition, the anti health reform faction keeps touting the solution is "Selling insurance across state lines". Right now, each state has their own insurance commission to oversee the health insurance companies and protect the consumer. I would imagine that selling across state lines would dismantle these state oversight agencies and establish one federal agency to monitor the industry.
It would appear that state's rights only applies when it suits the political agenda of the moment.
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.
