NationStates Jolt Archive

this is geared mainly to the USA government, but i suppose you can mention other forms of government.

In your opinion what do you think the role of the federal government should be as oppose to the role of the state government?

There shouldn't be state governments

this is geared mainly to the USA government, but i suppose you can mention other forms of government.

In your opinion what do you think the role of the federal government should be as oppose to the role of the state government?

Short answer, really:

Those powers specifically outlined in the Constitution towards the Legislature and President are the powers the federal government should have...

All other powers not listed, and not conflicting with any enumerated or applied rights of the people, are the powers of the state governments.

There shouldn't be state governments

Why shouldn't there be state governments? Aren't there issues which would be better answered by a state/regional legislatures than controlled at a national level?

my personal opinion on the matter is the federal government should be to maintain sovereign borders as a nation and to make laws regarding interstate issues.

there are many laws that are much better to be left up to a region then to pass nationwide. and as long as these laws don't affect other states then it should stay out of the federal governments hands

The founding fathers of the U.S. believed in the ideals of republicanism. Meaning being against centralized government. The only thing the federal government should do is to make new laws, protect it's borders and secure our constitutional liberties. Of course the federal government isn't doing these things, they're doing quite the opposite. Wanting to build a international highway through Canada, U.S., and Mexico, giving away our sovereignity and national security, voiding our constitutional rights, and centralizing government. Look at how many beurocracies and federal departments we have that we absolutely don't need.

I question the need for a Federal government, largely because I don't care if retards in Alabama or Texas want to fuck up their own state. However, assuming we have to have one.

Regulate foreign trade
Regulate commerce between US states
Monetary policy
Immigration policy
Defence
Foreign policy
Enforce human rights standards
Settle disputes between states
Create a post office


Things of that nature. As long as basic human rights standards are being maintained I'm not all that concerned with what you do in your own state. Texas wants no taxes an thus no services? I don't care. Massachusetts wants to be a social democracy? Good for them. Care factor: Zero.

I question the need for a Federal government, largely because I don't care if retards in Alabama or Texas want to fuck up their own state. However, assuming we have to have one.

Regulate foreign trade
Regulate commerce between US states
Monetary policy
Immigration policy
Defence
Foreign policy
Enforce human rights standards
Settle disputes between states
Create a post office


Things of that nature. As long as basic human rights standards are being maintained I'm not all that concerned with what you do in your own state. Texas wants no taxes an thus no services? I don't care. Massachusetts wants to be a social democracy? Good for them. Care factor: Zero.

I agree with you almost to the full extent except for a post office. Libertarian are we ?

I agree with you almost to the full extent except for a post office. Libertarian are we ?

Well, technically the Post Office could be construed under the realm of interstate-commerce... So I'd assume he's ok with the USPS.

Why shouldn't there be state governments? Aren't there issues which would be better answered by a state/regional legislatures than controlled at a national level?

for the most part no, and those that are are few and far between, which are mostly issues of funding, which can be handled by budgetary councils.

The idea of "states rights" has caused far more problems than they have solved. "states rights" cause students in affluent areas to have valueable and useful resources, while students in poor rural areas haven't even seen a computer. States rights and conflicting agencies caused much of the tragidy of Katrina.

States rights have been a constant tool of oppressive regimes to try to guise their bigotry and hate under the mantle of "states rights" by trying to argue that it should be the right of the state to outlaw abortion, gay sex, same sex marriage, and a host of other fundamental liberties.

States rights caused a fucking war because some states tried to decide that it was within their rights to allow people to own other people.

However, when states actually go the other direction, and try to use "states rights" to allow MORE freedoms such a late term abortions and gay marriage, those same backwater repressive state representatives try to force the federal government to stop it.

In short, states rights have been used as nothing more than a tool of repression, then conveniently forgotten when they have been used as a method to lessen oppression. No government, national, regional, or local, should claim special rights to be repressive.

Not to mention the host of legal issues with it, which are another topic all together.

The founding fathers of the U.S. believed in the ideals of republicanism. Meaning being against centralized government. The only thing the federal government should do is to make new laws, protect it's borders and secure our constitutional liberties. Of course the federal government isn't doing these things, they're doing quite the opposite. Wanting to build a international highway through Canada, U.S., and Mexico, giving away our sovereignity and national security, voiding our constitutional rights, and centralizing government. Look at how many beurocracies and federal departments we have that we absolutely don't need.
I don't see why you can't have a centralised, unitary republic.

I don't like how much money the federal government has. They use it, in the form of grants, to control state and local governments IMO/

for the most part no, and those that are are few and far between, which are mostly issues of funding, which can be handled by budgetary councils.

The idea of "states rights" has caused far more problems than they have solved. "states rights" cause students in affluent areas to have valueable and useful resources, while students in poor rural areas haven't even seen a computer. States rights and conflicting agencies caused much of the tragidy of Katrina.

States rights have been a constant tool of oppressive regimes to try to guise their bigotry and hate under the mantle of "states rights" by trying to argue that it should be the right of the state to outlaw abortion, gay sex, same sex marriage, and a host of other fundamental liberties.

States rights caused a fucking war because some states tried to decide that it was within their rights to allow people to own other people.

However, when states actually go the other direction, and try to use "states rights" to allow MORE freedoms such a late term abortions and gay marriage, those same backwater repressive state representatives try to force the federal government to stop it.

In short, states rights have been used as nothing more than a tool of repression, then conveniently forgotten when they have been used as a method to lessen oppression. No government, national, regional, or local, should claim special rights to be repressive.

Not to mention the host of legal issues with it, which are another topic all together.

I think you've missed a lot of regional considerations... And your version of a federal legislature with complete control of powers would end up being non-effective, and bogged down in what is effectively regional concerns to the point where either (1) they are ignoring more national concerns, or (2) ignoring those regional concerns in favor of tackling more national concerns... I can understand the idea of the "states' rights" position of abuse being a problem, but to outright eliminate the state to "fix it" is not as effective as you probably think it is... Especially when a population and region size we're talking about in the United States... It becomes micro-management... Which is generally never very effective.

I think you've missed a lot of regional considerations... And your version of a federal legislature with complete control of powers would end up being non-effective, and bogged down in what is effectively regional concerns to the point where either (1) they are ignoring more national concerns, or (2) ignoring those regional concerns in favor of tackling more national concerns... I can understand the idea of the "states' rights" position of abuse being a problem, but to outright eliminate the state to "fix it" is not as effective as you probably think it is... Especially when a population and region size we're talking about in the United States... It becomes micro-management... Which is generally never very effective.

I don't believe that regional concernes exist to the extent that you think they do. With the possible exception of disaster relief, I can think of no matter that can not be handled by universal, nationwide regulation and a bit of common sense and planning. Any excess beurocarcy that would be handled to the federal government would more than be made up for by trimming of the now irrelevant state beurocracies.

For instance, we have 51 school systems, not counting regional ones, all deciding on "standards" and the federal government's department of education. How is that MORE efficient than a singular, admittedly somewhat larger federal agency that handles educational standards across the board.

Why the hell should a student in Alabama not be held to the same standard as one in California?

Why the hell should the proficiency I need to demonstrate to drive a car in Alaska be different than in North Dakota?

Why the hell should "over the line" qualify as "in the intersection" in Connecticut, but "past the curb" qualify as "in the intersection" in New York (got a ticket for that one in college once)?

Seperate states lead to inefficiencies, diverse standards, and different beurocacies. This is, in no way, MORE efficient.

I don't like how much money the federal government has. They use it, in the form of grants, to control state and local governments IMO/

Quite Frankly,

No Shit, Sherlock.

We are THE United States. A unified country. What we would get if the Federal Government DIDNT control state governments would be something similar to the Articles of Confederation. A bunch of little countries loosely united under a name. Or worse, before even the Articles of Confederation, united in Name and Cause (driving out the British) only.


Personally, Im in favor of Reigonal, not state, governments

In the Canadian context, until regional divisions are somehow magically solved by a solidarity fairy, provincial/territorial governments are absolutely necessary. Considering that Federal power is consolidated in Ontario and Quebec, there is too much suspicion (and rightly so) that the Federal government would base its decision making on the concerns of that particular region. As well, Confederation was more of a kicking and screaming affair than a nice little meeting and shaking of hands. Newfoundland was dragged into the union only in 1949, and directly wanted out again (but were prevented). Most of the provinces would choose to go their separate ways if the mere THOUGHT of a purely unicameral government was put forth.

I don't believe that regional concernes exist to the extent that you think they do. With the possible exception of disaster relief, I can think of no matter that can not be handled by universal, nationwide regulation and a bit of common sense and planning. Any excess beurocarcy that would be handled to the federal government would more than be made up for by trimming of the now irrelevant state beurocracies.

For instance, we have 51 school systems, not counting regional ones, all deciding on "standards" and the federal government's department of education. How is that MORE efficient than a singular, admittedly somewhat larger federal agency that handles educational standards across the board.

Why the hell should a student in Alabama not be held to the same standard as one in California?

Why the hell should the proficiency I need to demonstrate to drive a car in Alaska be different than in North Dakota?

Why the hell should "over the line" qualify as "in the intersection" in Connecticut, but "past the curb" qualify as "in the intersection" in New York (got a ticket for that one in college once)?

Seperate states lead to inefficiencies, diverse standards, and different beurocacies. This is, in no way, MORE efficient.

"diverse" standards need to exist, in many cases... The proficiencies in driving a car in Florida, may not meet the standards of Alaska, but should they across the board? You'd expect someone in Maine to have a proficiency in driving in snowy/icy conditions, would someone in Miami need to meet this proficiency? The Chesapeake Bay Commission has been far more effective at dealing with pollution concerns in that area then the EPA ever was. Would a federal legislature be competent enough to determine the speed limit on Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA.? You seem to think it would... The effectiveness of things already handed over from state to federal concerns proves it doesn't.

for the most part no, and those that are are few and far between, which are mostly issues of funding, which can be handled by budgetary councils.

The idea of "states rights" has caused far more problems than they have solved. "states rights" cause students in affluent areas to have valueable and useful resources, while students in poor rural areas haven't even seen a computer. States rights and conflicting agencies caused much of the tragidy of Katrina.

The main idea behind state's rights today is that each state can be a "laboratory of democracy." Each state enacts its own policies, people get to judge what works and what doesn't. Their is alot more experimentation possible with 50 states working with each other than with one federal government and the people get to be more involved.


States rights have been a constant tool of oppressive regimes to try to guise their bigotry and hate under the mantle of "states rights" by trying to argue that it should be the right of the state to outlaw abortion, gay sex, same sex marriage, and a host of other fundamental liberties.

I would agree with you, but if certain policies are really bad ideas, the state governments will test it and find out. In any case,giving more power to states and local communities make America more of a government of the people.


States rights caused a fucking war because some states tried to decide that it was within their rights to allow people to own other people.

I would blame Lincoln for this, but I guess it depends on who you ask.


However, when states actually go the other direction, and try to use "states rights" to allow MORE freedoms such a late term abortions and gay marriage, those same backwater repressive state representatives try to force the federal government to stop it.

What dose this have to do with state rights? Whenever a government moves in any direction there is opposition.


In short, states rights have been used as nothing more than a tool of repression, then conveniently forgotten when they have been used as a method to lessen oppression. No government, national, regional, or local, should claim special rights to be repressive.

Yeah, I suppose that when you give states more room to do what they want, they have more room to fuck up, but I think it would be alot worse if the federal government had all the power and then they fucked up.
[/QUOTE]

You'd expect someone in Maine to have a proficiency in driving in snowy/icy conditions, would someone in Miami need to meet this proficiency?

Considering that person in Miami can then take that car and drive to Maine, yes, yes I think he should. In fact you sorta make my point for me. Shouldn't we expect EVERYBODY on the road to be able to demonstrate basic proficiency to an equal level because there's nothing stopping the person from Miami from moving to Maine?

Considering that person in Miami can then take that car and drive to Maine, yes, yes I think he should. In fact you sorta make my point for me. Shouldn't we expect EVERYBODY on the road to be able to demonstrate basic proficiency to an equal level because there's nothing stopping the person from Miami from moving to Maine?

That would seem more to support the idea of requiring review of people moving from one region to another, as opposed to creating a national standard... Yes, I think EVERYONE who drives should demonstrate a "basic proficiency", I do not think this "proficiency" is equal however, but changes depending where you are, and the conditions you'll encounter when driving in those areas.

Way to go in not addressing any other part of my post though... Everywhere the federal government has been given the opportunity to micro-manage a regional concern has ended up in failure; whether it's disaster relief, social-service concerns, or educational standards... It's resulted in long-term disaster zones, even poor segments of society and even dumber children.

Defend the borders from invasion by terrorist foriegners. In particular defend America from illegal immigrants.

Way to go in not addressing any other part of my post though... Everywhere the federal government has been given the opportunity to micro-manage a regional concern has ended up in failure; whether it's disaster relief, social-service concerns, or educational standards... It's resulted in long-term disaster zones, even poor segments of society and even dumber children.

I would call that a system of bad design and poor planning, as well as conflicts between central and regional divisions. If this was true EVERY centralized government would have these same flaws. However, for instance, sweden and norway rank higher than the US in educational standards, and they are a central government.

1) maintain sovereign borders
2) Welfare for citizens
3) regulate interstate issues
4) leave issues such as gun control, alcohol, and abortion up to states

Those were my votes, but I accidentally voted for "make laws for the general population" when copying and pasting the list of choices.

The Federal government of the United States of America's only purpose is to be the mediator between the states and to be in charge of foreign affairs. All laws for the population should be left to the state itself. The Federal government should also be there to help the people whom it presides over.

Other than that, the Federal government shouldn't be involved with the issues of disruptions in other countries unless the situation is extremely out of hand (eg. 1994's Rwanda) and it shouldn't be involved in issues inside the self-governing state unless the situation is extremely out of hand (eg. secession/discrimination/violence).

I would call that a system of bad design and poor planning, as well as conflicts between central and regional divisions. If this was true EVERY centralized government would have these same flaws. However, for instance, sweden and norway rank higher than the US in educational standards, and they are a central government.

They do... That's why you never see any large centralized governments... Look at the EU, Canada and the US as example of regional governments under larger "Unions" and "Confederations"... It's not practical nor expedient to manage such large territories with one central authority/government.

The few places that DID have large centralized control were authoritarian and nature (and failures, as they no longer exist anymore).

Defend the borders from invasion by terrorist foriegners. In particular defend America from illegal immigrants.

Oh noes the m0sl3mz and m3xicanz!!!

I agree with you almost to the full extent except for a post office. Libertarian are we ?

Somewhere between a green and a social democrat, actually. I just want Michigan to be a social democracy, not some monstrous unitary behemoth called "America".

4) leave issues such as gun control, alcohol, and abortion up to states


Not to pick on Jayate, but I have a problem with this part of the OP poll.

You see we have this thing called the Bill of Rights and we have the Fourteenth Amendment.

So why most issues should be handled by the states, issues like abortion are controlled by the U.S. Constitution.

Depending on one's view of the Second Amendment, the same is true for gun control.

That isn't to say that a state can't implement policies regarding abortion or gun control, only that they must ensure the minimum freedom required by the Constitution and no less.

Similarly, this isn't to say that the Federal Government should regulate abortion or gun control any more than the states -- with the exception that the federal courts and executive branch have a duty to protect individual rights protected by the Constitution.

It's all very well to talk about "states' rights" and the Articles of Confederation, etc., but things changed with the 14th Amendment, which applied portions of the Bill of Rights and protections of fundamental liberties to the states.

Not to pick on Jayate, but I have a problem with this part of the OP poll.

You see we have this thing called the Bill of Rights and we have the Fourteenth Amendment.

So why most issues should be handled by the states, issues like abortion are controlled by the U.S. Constitution.

Depending on one's view of the Second Amendment, the same is true for gun control.

That isn't to say that a state can't implement policies regarding abortion or gun control, only that they must ensure the minimum freedom required by the Constitution and no less.

Similarly, this isn't to say that the Federal Government should regulate abortion or gun control any more than the states -- with the exception that the federal courts and executive branch have a duty to protect individual rights protected by the Constitution.

It's all very well to talk about "states' rights" and the Articles of Confederation, etc., but things changed with the 14th Amendment, which applied portions of the Bill of Rights and protections of fundamental liberties to the states.

I disagree with your last paragraph. It didn't applie portions of the Bill of Rights. It applied all of the Bill of Rights to the states.

In my opinion, the chain of command, as it were, government wise is in pyramid form.

On top you have the federal government who makes the full laws of the land that apply to everyone, determine what the military does, ect ect.

On the next layer you have the state governments who makes laws pertaining to their states but must obey the demands of the federal government. None of this bullshit about states rights people. They're governments. They don't have rights.

Next layer down you have counties, then cities/towns/townships/villages and what you.

Each lower layer is subservient to the ones above it, but all are subservient to the People and do not have the authority to abridge, eliminate, or otherwise remove the rights of the People.

There should be no more state gov'ts.

I disagree with your last paragraph. It didn't applie portions of the Bill of Rights. It applied all of the Bill of Rights to the states.

um, no, no it did not. TCT is entirely correct, the 14th amendment applies parts, not all, of the bill of rights to the states. In fact, one could argue it would be impossible to apply all of the bill of rights to the states since the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Already applied to the states without the 14th.

Either way, full incorporation has never been adopted by the supreme court. Do try to do your homework first.

In fact, for an example, the fifth amendment reads, in part:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

However SCOTUS has held that the right to a federal grand jury does not apply to the states, and this particular section of the 5th amendment has not been incorporated.

That's just one example.

I disagree with your last paragraph. It didn't applie portions of the Bill of Rights. It applied all of the Bill of Rights to the states.

SCOTUS disagrees with you. Instead of ruling that the entire Bill of Rights is incorporated by the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS has chosen selective incorporation of portions of the Bill of Rights. This has resulted in the incorporation of ALMOST ALL of the Bill of Rights, but not every provision. For example, the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases has not been incorporated.

Here is a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)) on the topic.

And here is an article from the NRA (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23).