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.
if we did secede you would use force against us, you cant stand the idea of someone not playing by your rigged rules, or tolerate anything that would expose your system of lies, corruption, fraud and theft.
You are too terrified of that force to try and secede, plus you don't even have a majority in any single state that would support secession. So when you are done pecking away at your computer, you should try to secede and you will get to witness first hand the power of the United States of America.
Yep, like civil rights and things that effect all Americans. You must hate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cause it gets in the way of your States argument.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed for the federal government, not the states. Each state has its own constitution and if you notice, they all fairly similar and mimic the US constitution to a certain degree. Key differences existed though, for instance while the Feds had absolutely no authority over the 2nd, individual states could specify restrictions if they chose. Notice that the 2nd amendment protection in many states differs quite a bit with some states having no protection for it at all (CA).
This was by design. The states were supposed to be the testing grounds for good and bad ideas to which were under more direct control by the people. If a state began to institute poor policies, people would leave to another state or, had a much better chance of changing policy within the state. With incorporation and the 17th amendment, states were severely reduced in power and providing a mechanism for federal government to assert its authority over the states.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed for the federal government, not the states. Each state has its own constitution and if you notice, they all fairly similar and mimic the US constitution to a certain degree. Key differences existed though, for instance while the Feds had absolutely no authority over the 2nd, individual states could specify restrictions if they chose. Notice that the 2nd amendment protection in many states differs quite a bit with some states having no protection for it at all (CA).
This was by design. The states were supposed to be the testing grounds for good and bad ideas to which were under more direct control by the people. If a state began to institute poor policies, people would leave to another state or, had a much better chance of changing policy within the state. With incorporation and the 17th amendment, states were severely reduced in power and providing a mechanism for federal government to assert its authority over the states.
The federal government is made up of the states. It were representatives from the states that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You guys seem to think the federal government is some sort of outside force that rules over the country, you guys must forget what you are voting for when you vote for your representatives.
Yeah, for anyone who understands history and applies it's lessons to the present, the outcome is quite obvious.
Yet you have people who not only think that the system in sustainable, but they think it is a good idea!
And as you have probably read, if you ask these people questions about economics, or the role of government, they go, "Uh, uh, America! Red, white and blue, baby!". Notice the poster above has answered not ONE of the hard questions I asked of him.
The U.S. federal government is a burden to the states.
Actually, I think a real understanding of history doesn't support your argument. Comparing the United States to the Soviet Union is really a misnomer. The Soviet Union's economic problems were much more systemic, having to do with their aggressive takeover of countries like Poland and Georgia, and having to maintain a gargantuan military to keep control of those nations in the face of constant unrest. On top of this, they were forcibly transforming an agrarian economy into a modern, industrialized and technological economy. In order to accomplish these two things, they were constantly moving resources around in what was basically a shell game that resulted in a shell of a military where shiny new paint hid the rot beneath, and a shell of an economy where equipment and manpower became outdated and malfunctioning.
The United States has an enormous debt, and that's a huge problem. But it's not going to go away just because the US transitions power from the federal government to the states. Other countries aren't going to forgive the debt because Mississippi will now control and fund its schools without help from the federal government. And if you get rid of the United States federal government altogether, the individual states will still have to forge international economic relations to keep their individual state economies running. Texas and Louisiana will still want to sell oil on the global markets. Florida will still want to sell oranges on the global market. California will still want to sell produce and technology on the global market. Arkansas will still want to sell rice, chickens and bauxite on the global market. And each one of these states will find it more difficult and more expensive to do so, because not only will the global market want to recoup some of the debt it loses at the dissolution of the federal government, but each state will have less leverage to negotiate with foreign countries.
The entire globe has suffered through a recession, with some countries faring better, and some countries faring worse as we've all struggled toward recovery. The United States has actually fared better than many, in part because the US economy as a matter of scale is just a powerhouse. Decentralization means breaking up the powerhouse, and that means that some states' economies would simply collapse. A network is like a web, and the American economy is like a gigantic web, that covers more than half the globe. Some parts of the web are weaker than other parts, and some parts are stronger, but if you start shredding the web to lose the weaker parts, you simply lose the whole web. And any shreds that survive are weaker than they were before.
The federal government is made up of the states. It were representatives from the states that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You guys seem to think the federal government is some sort of outside force that rules over the country, you guys must forget what you are voting for when you vote for your representatives.
Yes... they wrote the constitution specifically to limit the Federal Government. The states had their own constitutions and bill of rights. They weren't even planning on creating a federal bill of rights because it was implied that what was not provided in powers within the constitution was implicitly denied. The states states were wary of that, so they went ahead and created a bill of rights to explicitly note their limitations of the federal government on those issues. This is why the federal government has absolutely no authority over the 2nd and why individual states vary in their declarations of such. There however was a requirement for each state that entered the union, that they meet a minimum requirement of their state constitutions. Though you will notice that CA has no protection for the 2nd, none. That means, that under the way our government originally was, CA could rightfully restrict the right to bare arms within their state. Other states put in versions of such in their own constitutions and handled their clauses specifically. Another example is Texas, which has a 2nd amendment, but limits the carrying of firearms specifically and this can not be adjusted as their constitution specifically disallows any changes, adaptations, or adjustments to these initial protections.
Again, this was due to the fact that each state was under their own constitutions and bill of rights as the federal constitution and bill of rights explicitly attended to the powers of the federal government.
The point you seem to be missing is that the federal government has been subverting the power of the states for years. The 17th as I said is exactly this as before the 17th, a rogue senator could be removed by the state when they did not serve the state's best interest and they were appointed by the state so there was no influence by outside parties. Each locale official was elected by their local constituents. The elected officials selected these seats by vote, not by american idol idiocy of people who only vote based on politician handout promises. This created layers of control by the locales, not statewide elections where one area could have more influence over the state than another. Also, incorporation destroyed the state constitutions forcing each state to be under the limitations of the federal government which if you haven't noticed, they don't bother to follow anyway, but they are the authority over the states so they can enforce what they choose. Centralizing power is exactly what the founders tried to avoid, though here you are advocating ignorantly everything they stood against. You have been lied to and programmed to believe something that is false.
It doesn't matter though, you are so blinded by your partisan beliefs, that beating you in the head with the facts won't change a thing. You believe what you want because it suits your individual interests and that is exactly why our country is caving in on itself. The founders had people like you pegged from the start and warned of how people like you would slowly corrupt the system for your own interests.
Actually, I think a real understanding of history doesn't support your argument. Comparing the United States to the Soviet Union is really a misnomer. The Soviet Union's economic problems were much more systemic, having to do with their aggressive takeover of countries like Poland and Georgia, and having to maintain a gargantuan military to keep control of those nations in the face of constant unrest. On top of this, they were forcibly transforming an agrarian economy into a modern, industrialized and technological economy. In order to accomplish these two things, they were constantly moving resources around in what was basically a shell game that resulted in a shell of a military where shiny new paint hid the rot beneath, and a shell of an economy where equipment and manpower became outdated and malfunctioning.
The United States has an enormous debt, and that's a huge problem. But it's not going to go away just because the US transitions power from the federal government to the states. Other countries aren't going to forgive the debt because Mississippi will now control and fund its schools without help from the federal government. And if you get rid of the United States federal government altogether, the individual states will still have to forge international economic relations to keep their individual state economies running. Texas and Louisiana will still want to sell oil on the global markets. Florida will still want to sell oranges on the global market. California will still want to sell produce and technology on the global market. Arkansas will still want to sell rice, chickens and bauxite on the global market. And each one of these states will find it more difficult and more expensive to do so, because not only will the global market want to recoup some of the debt it loses at the dissolution of the federal government, but each state will have less leverage to negotiate with foreign countries.
The entire globe has suffered through a recession, with some countries faring better, and some countries faring worse as we've all struggled toward recovery. The United States has actually fared better than many, in part because the US economy as a matter of scale is just a powerhouse. Decentralization means breaking up the powerhouse, and that means that some states' economies would simply collapse. A network is like a web, and the American economy is like a gigantic web, that covers more than half the globe. Some parts of the web are weaker than other parts, and some parts are stronger, but if you start shredding the web to lose the weaker parts, you simply lose the whole web. And any shreds that survive are weaker than they were before.
Just one more reason for a strong central Government. In Hitlers day the strong central government partnered with the largest Corporations to control the people. That type of Federal Government we do not need, we have it , and it needs to be surgically removed. This is one of the things that has put a bad taste in the mouth of people calling for more States Rights.As long as the Federal Government can be accountable, provide over-site ( which they do not follow now , never had ) its the only way to fly...O' one more form of Interstate Commerce is the policing and protection of the sky's, both economically and safety driven. When the Airlines were deregulated in the the 70s it was an entry deregulation not an accountable one, that purpose was to provide competition with new Airlines coming co board, lowering rates. It worked for a while, but could not sustain itself. Many airlines failed, good ones that provided a service no one else could, Pan Am , could not survive in this new deregulated marketplace. I am not so sure what we have today is any better, eventually all the cheap airfares go away and you have what we have now select markets where profits are high, and other markets that can not survive with the high cost of flying from places that were not " profitable" to these airlines., smaller markets. Maybe doing away with need and necessity clause was not a good thing after all.
Yes... they wrote the constitution specifically to limit the Federal Government. The states had their own constitutions and bill of rights. They weren't even planning on creating a federal bill of rights because it was implied that what was not provided in powers within the constitution was implicitly denied. The states states were wary of that, so they went ahead and created a bill of rights to explicitly note their limitations of the federal government on those issues. This is why the federal government has absolutely no authority over the 2nd and why individual states vary in their declarations of such. There however was a requirement for each state that entered the union, that they meet a minimum requirement of their state constitutions. Though you will notice that CA has no protection for the 2nd, none. That means, that under the way our government originally was, CA could rightfully restrict the right to bare arms within their state. Other states put in versions of such in their own constitutions and handled their clauses specifically. Another example is Texas, which has a 2nd amendment, but limits the carrying of firearms specifically and this can not be adjusted as their constitution specifically disallows any changes, adaptations, or adjustments to these initial protections.
Again, this was due to the fact that each state was under their own constitutions and bill of rights as the federal constitution and bill of rights explicitly attended to the powers of the federal government.
The point you seem to be missing is that the federal government has been subverting the power of the states for years. The 17th as I said is exactly this as before the 17th, a rogue senator could be removed by the state when they did not serve the state's best interest and they were appointed by the state so there was no influence by outside parties. The elected officials selected these seats by vote, not by american idol idiocy of people who only vote based on politician handout promises. Also, incorporation destroyed the state constitutions forcing each state to be under the limitations of the federal government which if you haven't noticed, they don't bother to follow anyway, but they are the authority over the states so they can enforce what they choose. Centralizing power is exactly what the founders tried to avoid, though here you are advocating ignorantly everything they stood against. You have been lied to and programmed to believe something that is false.
It doesn't matter though, you are so blinded by your partisan beliefs, that beating you in the head with the facts won't change a thing. You believe what you want because it suits your individual interests and that is exactly why our country is caving in on itself. The founders had people like you pegged from the start and warned of how people like you would slowly corrupt the system for your own interests.
Such foolishness.
The Founders actually disagreed about a strong versus a weak federal government. The Federalist Papers outline the arguments of those Founders who supported a strong central government.
I think it's ironic that in the early administrations, the Presidents who were pro-Federalist actually did little to expand federal power, while the Presidents who were anti-Federalist took actions that actually supported a very strong federal government.
Yes... they wrote the constitution specifically to limit the Federal Government. The states had their own constitutions and bill of rights. They weren't even planning on creating a federal bill of rights because it was implied that what was not provided in powers within the constitution was implicitly denied. The states states were wary of that, so they went ahead and created a bill of rights to explicitly note their limitations of the federal government on those issues. This is why the federal government has absolutely no authority over the 2nd and why individual states vary in their declarations of such. There however was a requirement for each state that entered the union, that they meet a minimum requirement of their state constitutions. Though you will notice that CA has no protection for the 2nd, none. That means, that under the way our government originally was, CA could rightfully restrict the right to bare arms within their state. Other states put in versions of such in their own constitutions and handled their clauses specifically. Another example is Texas, which has a 2nd amendment, but limits the carrying of firearms specifically and this can not be adjusted as their constitution specifically disallows any changes, adaptations, or adjustments to these initial protections.
Again, this was due to the fact that each state was under their own constitutions and bill of rights as the federal constitution and bill of rights explicitly attended to the powers of the federal government.
The point you seem to be missing is that the federal government has been subverting the power of the states for years. The 17th as I said is exactly this as before the 17th, a rogue senator could be removed by the state when they did not serve the state's best interest and they were appointed by the state so there was no influence by outside parties. Each locale official was elected by their local constituents. The elected officials selected these seats by vote, not by american idol idiocy of people who only vote based on politician handout promises. This created layers of control by the locales, not statewide elections where one area could have more influence over the state than another. Also, incorporation destroyed the state constitutions forcing each state to be under the limitations of the federal government which if you haven't noticed, they don't bother to follow anyway, but they are the authority over the states so they can enforce what they choose. Centralizing power is exactly what the founders tried to avoid, though here you are advocating ignorantly everything they stood against. You have been lied to and programmed to believe something that is false.
It doesn't matter though, you are so blinded by your partisan beliefs, that beating you in the head with the facts won't change a thing. You believe what you want because it suits your individual interests and that is exactly why our country is caving in on itself. The founders had people like you pegged from the start and warned of how people like you would slowly corrupt the system for your own interests.
Such foolishness.
So you either don't like having the people in each state pick their own Senators or you don't like the fact that the 17th Amendment made it harder to change Amendments requiring a large majority of Americans to approve.
Just one more reason for a strong central Government. In Hitlers day the strong central government partnered with the largest Corporations to control the people. That type of Federal Government we do not need, we have it , and it needs to be surgically removed. This is one of the things that has put a bad taste in the mouth of people calling for more States Rights.As long as the Federal Government can be accountable, provide over-site ( which they do not follow now , never had ) its the only way to fly...O' one more form of Interstate Commerce is the policing and protection of the sky's, both economically and safety driven. When the Airlines were deregulated in the the 70s it was an entry deregulation not an accountable one, that purpose was to provide competition with new Airlines coming co board, lowering rates. It worked for a while, but could not sustain itself. Many airlines failed, good ones that provided a service no one else could, Pan Am , could not survive in this new deregulated marketplace. I am not so sure what we have today is any better, eventually all the cheap airfares go away and you have what we have now select markets where profits are high, and other markets that can not survive with the high cost of flying from places that were not " profitable" to these airlines., smaller markets. Maybe doing away with need and necessity clause was not a good thing after all.
Virtually every government takes measures to help the economy, the difference being their approaches and the degree to which they intercede in the economy. The thing about capitalism is that in the long-run capitalism is about an economy of scale. Capitalism favors large corporations. As companies get bigger, they swallow their competition by forcing the competition out, or by merging with the competition. Capitalism requires business to grow, and the logical end-result of growth is monopoly. However, that's not a healthy economy. So capitalist countries have to impose restrictions on businesses; we say that the government is restricting unfair business practices (unfair business practices like monopolies, insider trading, cornering the commodities market, any practice that excludes people from participation and competition). With a decentralized federal government, where power to impose or lift restrictions were left to the state, the states would each design their laws to fit a particular agenda. I believe that money would end up controlling the state governments, widening the divide even further between the haves and the have-nots, further eroding the middle class, and creating a much less stable economy overall. The problem with less stable economies is they are less attractive for investment in the long run. Risk is a short-term playing field.
The federal government is made up of the states. It were representatives from the states that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You guys seem to think the federal government is some sort of outside force that rules over the country, you guys must forget what you are voting for when you vote for your representatives.
Heh, you almost got it, except that it's our representatives who forget why we elected them to represent us in Washington.
That is the problem, we elect these members to the congress and they end up working toward fulfilling their own goals, and amassing their own fiefdoms and power. We need to repeal the 17th amendment, and get our senate back to representing the states, so they do not make secret back room deals, consisting of thousands of pages of incomprehensible laws, and jam them down our throats at midnight.
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.
