is it time to dismantle the federal government? (Representatives, interstate, borders)

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by jojajn

So what happens, for example, if one state builds a dam upstream from a state that depends on that river for water, tourism, etc....? Have wars between the states to settle such disputes?

Gee, maybe if they had kind of a central, blanket-type document to cover things like that. Things that all the states should agree on legally, in the interest of their common good. (Although "common good" is a socialist idea, isn't it? Can't have that!)

[Kracer]

Lets start with gutting the IRS and EPA, part time legislators and cut foreign aid.

Raise the standards to work within a budget and read legislation before they nudge it.

No more riders, no life terms
No more Barneys, no more Guitners
dump the guys that slept at the switch
let's not forget the weed and the witch

allow military votes to count

eliminate recess appointments unless continental US is under attack
eliminate congressional offices in DC

[irishvanguard]

Originally Posted by lorrysda

I disagree. We only need to force the Federal Government to stay within the parameters of which the Constitution limits same.

Our Constitution is the key, the answer and the only way in which we will be able to keep the America those of us old enough to remember have enjoyed.

Well, actually the national defense and protection of our borders are the only delegated powers for our federal government, according to the Constitution.

[Dumbdowndemocrats]

Originally Posted by irishvanguard

Well, actually the national defense and protection of our borders are the only delegated powers for our federal government, according to the Constitution.

You are correct also the postal service that is all that the Constitution allows...some here sound like they don't know their rights and are willing to give them up with no problem? Why?

[WIHS2006]

Originally Posted by Dumbdowndemocrats

You are correct also the postal service that is all that the Constitution allows...some here sound like they don't know their rights and are willing to give them up with no problem? Why?

Isent the USPS now semi-private with FedGov control limited to the President appointing the Postmaster General?

[KevK]

Originally Posted by lorrysda

The basic foundation of our unique governing structure has not changed at all.

The only thing that has changed is the speed of communications, which has no impact on the implementation and restrictions on Federal government as mandated by our Constitution.

The Federal Government was limited because of 2 practical reasons: One was that the Framers feared that a strong Federal government would end up being just like the one they left behind in England- a monarchy thing. And the other was because, at the time, there was not much need for a strong national government. People tended to live in the same place and farm from birth to death. What happened in one place did not effect people in other places for the most part.
Now we have mass highways, people move from one state to another everyday (I have lived in 6 states myself) and planes travel from New York to L.A. in a few hours- a trip that 200 years ago would have taken months and months. So a strong central government is essential.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by outbacknv

Dismantle; no. Radically restructure and forcibly constrain within Constitutional guidelines; absolutely.





The Constitution is not a "living breathing document" despite the frequent assertions from liberals to the contrary.

It is. It changes over time as it is applied to more modern situations.

[summers73]

Originally Posted by KevK

The Federal Government was limited because of 2 practical reasons: One was that the Framers feared that a strong Federal government would end up being just like the one they left behind in England- a monarchy thing. And the other was because, at the time, there was not much need for a strong national government. People tended to live in the same place and farm from birth to death. What happened in one place did not effect people in other places for the most part.
Now we have mass highways, people move from one state to another everyday (I have lived in 6 states myself) and planes travel from New York to L.A. in a few hours- a trip that 200 years ago would have taken months and months. So a strong central government is essential.

Gee, that's a nice academic discussion. Too bad the FedGov always has and always will be limited by its founding documents. You're welcome to your opinions on how you think the framers would think today, but fortunately they'll just never become reality.

[newhandle]

Originally Posted by independentsucka

I think we should keep only the DOD in place, and just start delegating all other responsibilities to the states. states could come up with their own retirement plans, finance roads, police, education, ect. we'd then have a choice of 50 different places to call home, and it would be much easier to institute a change at the state level. the federal government is out of control, drunk on power, and it's time for true change. it's time to scrap this worthless corporation we call the federal government.

Like that will really work. Think of it, I want to drive my car from NC to NY. I could be stopped at every state line and forced to pay a fee since I don't pay any regisration fees for roads and there would be no federal road money. Now that is really efficient. That would be just the first step.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by WIHS2006

IMO the FedGov is constitutionally only supposed to have control over defense, foreign affairs, customs & immigration, and federal level judicial and taxation matters. They have no business being involved in healthcare, education, etc - those are private matters (healthcare) and state matters (education).

The states did not handle them well which is why they are now a Federal responsibility.