News What if the states had more power and responsibility in governing?

[mheslep]

Publius (Madison) elaborates on the subject:

...The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State...

http://federali.st/45

...But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution;

http://federali.st/39

 

[WhoWee]

A new development

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/10/MN4V17BCF2.DTL

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There's almost no limit to what the federal government can mandate by taking money from state residents and only giving it back if they meet federal requirements.

Hmmmmmm. That is an interesting point. It's not just a matter of a State living beyond its means. There is also the matter of total State revenues being reduced through increased Federal taxation. But then again, Congress approves the Federal tax laws and rates. And Congress is a collection of representitives from each State. So it is fair to argue that the States dictate the Federal tax rate.

So, rather than a choice to live elsewhere, state residents can always choose to forego federal funding if the strings attached are too onerous.

Has this ever actually happened? If so, it is extremely rare. Politicians who bring home the bacon are the ones who get reelected. It seems that we will sell our Constitutional souls for good roads and better schools. So it seems that this really boils down to an issue of public awareness. How many people really know what rights they sacrifice for the benefits received?

 

[Jasongreat]

I think we just need to enforce and respect the Constitution.

So far I think this is the only time I have said that I completely agree with Ivan. I think this thread would more appropiately be titled should we let the states take back the power they are guaranteed in the constitution.
IMO we do need to take the power that the federal government has appropiated from the states and return it to where it belongs. It seems to me that every state has pretty much the same problems such as poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, etc; etc;. If we allowed each state to try and solve these problems by themselves we would have 50 different opinions, and 50 different solutions and time would tell which ones worked and which ones didnt, but by trying to solve every problem at the national level we only get to try one solution thereby limiting our chances of success severely. Because of this we also get stuck to failing ideas, since we already have so much time and money invested in the original solution we are less likely to re-examine our original choice and are more likely to decide we just need to spend more time and money to fully realize success. This could never happen in 50 separate but United States since all the citizenery of one state has to do is look at the other states, if another state is seeing success, people are not likely to live in a failing state with a successful example close by and will vote to fix their state based on the examples they have seen, one state learning from another, but who or what is the national government going to learn from? We have already seen that they don't learn from failure but use that failure as a reason to get more funding and they don't learn from history since they seem to love to re-live it at our expense, so I guess my question is when are we going to learn?

 

[Al68]

Capitalism, as one conservative commentator put it, is a government program (George Will), not a state of nature, so it must be managed.

There does seem to be a huge difference in what the word capitalism means to different people. When I, and libertarians, use the word capitalism, we are not referring to any government program, activity, or anything controlled or "managed" by government or anyone else.

We use the word capitalism to refer to free enterprise, the voluntary trading of goods and services by free people without the interference of government, or any "management" by anyone.

While this may seem like a foreign concept to many today, it was a centerpiece of the Enlightenment movement. John Locke and Adam Smith weren't referring to any kind of managed economic system when they were advocating free enterprise capitalism.

The U.S. Constitution provides no power to either federal or state governments to "manage" the economy. Our founding fathers were products of the Enlightenment, not Marxist ideology.

 

[Al68]

As to knowing what is best for you then, by accepting that you live under the umbrella of the power of the Federal Government, you have ceded certain rights to make local decisions, as well as accepted certain obligations, in order to receive the benefits and personal liberties that you do enjoy.

And I was silly enough to think my liberties were "endowed by my creator" and inalienable. Thanks for educating me about how I received them from government and am obligated to trade them for an umbrella.

 

[Jasongreat]

And I was silly enough to think my liberties were "endowed by my creator" and inalienable. Thanks for educating me about how I received them from government and am obligated to trade them for an umbrella.

You have made a great point, I have just finished booker t washingtons autobiography, he states in there that lots of blacks believed that the government gave them their re-birth as freemen and therefore looked to the government as to a mother. I think the same has happened with women believeing the government gave them the right to vote. These groups seem unable to look at history and see that the government was the one who backed the removal of their given rights in the first place, and now give them credit for finally giving them the rights they were born with. Kind of like a theif that steals a persons wealth, then when the victim is desitute, gives the victim back the money and receives credit for saving the victim.
As I have stated in other posts, government cannot give without first taking.

 

[mheslep]

AI68 you're replying to year old posts from folks that are no longer current in the forum.

 

[WhoWee]

AI68 you're replying to year old posts from folks that are no longer current in the forum.

I rather enjoyed debating with LP.

 

[lisab]

I rather enjoyed debating with LP.

I miss LP, wonder where he/she went.

 

[byronm]

I'm liking Glenn Beck's idea of giving everyone a pitchfork more and more every day.

Glenn Beck is an entertainer. I find him repulsive :)

Regardless of party affiliation, I'd like to see about (well - ALL - 100%) NEW elected officials in D.C. over the next few years. Unfortunately, they'd still be saddled with all of the existing problems...and special interests, government agency (size and cost) and they wouldn't know "the rules of engagement" (with foreign powers) as well as the seasoned politicians.

Government size & cost? What is your basis for measuring this as success or failure? SUrely you're not suggesting that there is an artifical cap are you?

I suppose it could create as many problems as it would resolve...probably about as realistic as thinking Doctors, hospitals, drug and insurance companies will volunteer to reduce their fees so health care costs are less...that's not happening either.

No, i don't foresee that happening on a large enough scale. That isn't to say that these places don't already do that. However just think of how many people could have been treated if the insurance lobby didn't exist and that 360 million went directly into improving the system? I don't think people in politcs is the problem, i think the huge CORPORATE control of politics is. Politics is about people after all, not sure who's bright idea it was to giv CORPORATIONS people rights.

So where do we start...if we want REAL change...maybe we SHOULD give more power (and much bigger budgets) and responsibility to state governments? I assume state officials actually LIVE in their respective states and are more in touch with the specific problems of their resident populations...I could be wrong.

Can you define real change? For me - real change is universal health care, real change is moving to a green/renewable energy resource so and so forth - over 50 million people voted for change that is being denied simply because people want to re-define change itself for argumentive sak.

Nothing is perfect by anymeans, but we have someone in office who can implement real change.. i'd just like to see what you think it is.

If this were possible, the primary responsibilities of D.C. would become foreign affairs and oversight departments that HAVE to be national in scope (agriculture, homeland security, justice, labor, treasury, education, defense, space, etc.). This would require a DRASTICALLY REDUCED federal budget that COULD be managed.

Not sure how you could drastically reduce the budget and do what you say.

The 50 governors should be more than capable of managing larger state budgets...if not...voters get to the polls! With more tax revenues going to the states...maybe they could even forget about Lotteries.

Got any evidence to support this argument?

 

[WhoWee]

The post you are quoting had a birthday on Sunday (Hey, wasn't that Evo's Birthday too?) - Happy Birthday Old Post and Evo too!

 

[Al68]

Politics is about people after all, not sure who's bright idea it was to giv CORPORATIONS people rights.

No rights were "given". No rights are ever given by government. They never belonged to government to give. They originated in each person.

As far as corporations, a corporation is an agent for its stockholders, which are people. It's not the corporation itself that has rights, it's the people it represents. And, yes, they have the same rights as all people.

Asking why a corporation has rights is like asking why a condom should have rights while trying to restrict them.

And the notion that a corporation itself pays taxes is like saying that the fuel tax is paid by the gasoline itself.

These things only make sense to people that don't know what a corporation is.

 

[mihna]

I think ceding authority to the states would be a smart decision IF the constitution was held as supreme and strictly upheld across the board.

Anything less would result in flagrant civil rights abuses in many primarily rural states.

As far as Glen Beck supporters/tea partyers go; I'm in favor of allowing them to pick a state, say Montana and seceding. As long as they don't complain when they are denied the protection of our military, removal of funding for public infrastructures and any economic sanctions that would entail.

I in return would accept that I'm not allowed to immigrate there if/when their doomsday scenario occurs.

 

[Pattonias]

I think ceding authority to the states would be a smart decision IF the constitution was held as supreme and strictly upheld across the board.

Anything less would result in flagrant civil rights abuses in many primarily rural states.

I think this is what the US claims to adhere to.

 

[mugaliens]

So where do we start...if we want REAL change..

How about enacting an amendment which requires that all federal legislation be capable of being printed on no more than a 1 foot stack of 20 lb 8-1/2" x 11" paper in 12-pt Courier type?

...maybe we SHOULD give more power (and much bigger budgets) and responsibility to state governments? I assume state officials actually LIVE in their respective states and are more in touch with the specific problems of their resident populations...I could be wrong.

It's not a matter of "giving" power to the states, as the Constitution only gave certain, very limited powers to the Fed in the first place, and reserved all other powers to the states. The states' response to Obama care, with 36 of the 50 filing lawsuits against the fed was refreshing to see, as it was a clear, appropriate, and Constitutional response to the fed trying to exert powers that were never specifically given to the fed in the first place.

Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.​

All other powers are reserved to the states. Section 8 of the Constitution details the powers specifically granted to the fed.

The fed has long overstepped the bounds of its Constitutional authority, but that's largely the states' fault for allowing them to do so. It's good to see the states' stepping up to the plate and saying, "No, fed - that's our responsibility. See 'ya."

If this were possible, the primary responsibilities of D.C. would become foreign affairs and oversight departments that HAVE to be national in scope (agriculture, homeland security, justice, labor, treasury, education, defense, space, etc.). This would require a DRASTICALLY REDUCED federal budget that COULD be managed.

Again, see section 8. Most of what you mentioned, including education, were never given to the fed. They were reserved to the states.

Yes, I know the debt isn't going away. But it could be frozen in time, and allocated over the 50 states to be paid in installments...to a federal department that would actually handle the funds in trust for the intended purpose. The new federal budgetary guidelines could then mandate a real balanced budget...with ONE set of books.

The 50 governors should be more than capable of managing larger state budgets...if not...voters get to the polls! With more tax revenues going to the states...maybe they could even forget about Lotteries.

If the fed doesn't start balancing the budgets, expect more than a handful of states to tell the Fed: You goofed. We're taking it from here.