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 take the opposite. The Federal government should be powerful and strong and I would eliminate state governments if anything. Everything I can think of should either be done on a local level (county, city) or a national level. There really is not much use for state govenments. The United States cannot operate as 50 different nations. We are much too advanced and mobile for that anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
Our Constitution was written over 200 years ago. It was written by Framers that drove to Philadelphia on horses from nearby states. People lived on farms back then and did not have TV, computers, cell phones, cars or even electricity. Things have changed since then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
We've fought this battle before and it looks like we’ll fight it again. This battle was fought when the Constitution was written, and prior to the Civil War. The best way to preserve and enforce a legal system that maintains the legal, civil, and human rights for all Americans is with a strong federal system.
States rights have historically been used to deny people their civil, human and voting rights. At this stage of the game you are NOT going to get enough support to rewrite the entire Constitution. The federal government is not and should not hand over power to the states.
If you are not happy with the federal government then the thing to do is reform it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006
Isent the USPS now semi-private with FedGov control limited to the President appointing the Postmaster General?
and to approve postal rates.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newhandle
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.
a lot of conjecture here that is out right false. the commerce clause of the constitution allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce to avoid many of the things some are afraid of. for instance you dont have to get a drivers license in every state because of the full faith and credit clause in the commerce clause. you dont have to register your vehicle in every state you want to travel through again because of the full faith and credit clause.
the federal government needs to be reined in substantially, and many parts eliminated, or severely restricted. the founding fathers wanted a weak federal government that allowed of national defense, and treaty negotiation(imagine 50 states sending representatives to all treaty negotiations, and then all 50 states having to ratify every treaty). the federal government is also tasked with controlling the borders, and defending our interests, and providing a top court system to mediate disputes between the states, and to apply the constitution to any law created either by the feds or the states. the department of education, the EPA, osha, and many other federal agencies should never have been created as there is no constitutional authority for them.
It can be changed either by direct amendment or by judicial re interpretation via the courts.
the constitution cannot be changed by judicial interpretation, only by 2/3 of each house of congress, and then 3/4 of the states can an amendment be added to the constitution. judges can only apply the constitution to the law.
Our Constitution was written over 200 years ago. It was written by Framers that drove to Philadelphia on horses from nearby states. People lived on farms back then and did not have TV, computers, cell phones, cars or even electricity. Things have changed since then.
No .. things haven't changed since then ..
This isn't about wireless phones, cars, televisions or the internet (one good solar storm can wipe all of our technical things out in an instant) .. it's about keeping tyranny in check, and preserving our freedoms as individuals.
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?
Simple. That's why you have government authorities like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to handle such issues. We don't need a federal government to handle complex issues like that. All the neighboring jurisdictions have to do is to create an authority which is classed as a special-purpose district like the one I mentioned above and that authority is run by the local and/or state governments and the Authority has the power to decide what to do with the tasks at hand without requiring the consent of both governments.
Quote:
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.
A strong central government is not essential. With a very large country, you need states to micromanage the pockets of the country. You expect Washington to take care of every single problem America has? The feds couldn't even handle Katrina correctly! And you expect the feds to take over the states? Get a reality grip. Even the UK, which has the kind of government you live (a unitary one) relies on local councils to govern the people on a small island nation and they devolved their governments so now Westminster no longer controls the affairs of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. So even a small island nation has said devolution is a better thing .
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.
and they devolved their governments so now Westminster no longer controls the affairs of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. So even a small island nation has said devolution is a better thing 
.
