} State or Federal { Who should have more control

States or Federal

  • States

    Votes: 22 81.5%
  • Federal

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • Total voters
    27

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
Simple poll who do you think should have more control of regulation , pollution ,problems..ect


Post why if you please


I say states because the citizens are able to get a tighter grip on their balls.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
A mixture of Federal and local. State governments tend to be the most easily corruptible and least efficient.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
State governments are generally MUCH MORE efficient than the Fed. MUCH MORE!!! Hell there are states that not only have a balanced budget, but even have a surplus of funds. Are they corruptable? If you have never learned anything from JRR Tolkien's books is that Man is the most easily corrupted of all.

The Fed can have the powers the Constitution gave them, everything else is reserved to the people or the states.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
The states where possible. You mention pollution but air and water issues cross state lines and are best protected by Federal law. There are regulations that are best enforced by Fed rather than the less powerful states.
 

sonar

Well-Known Member
The federal government, and the president especially, have way to much power. Bottom line, it wasn't designed that way based on most scholars interpretation of the Constitution. This is a very old debate dating back to when the Articles of Confederation were scrapped for the current US Constitution. What we let the president get away with now compared to his role 200 years ago is astounding.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
The federal government, and the president especially, have way to much power. Bottom line, it wasn't designed that way based on most scholars interpretation of the Constitution. This is a very old debate dating back to when the Articles of Confederation were scrapped for the current US Constitution. What we let the president get away with now compared to his role 200 years ago is astounding.
The articles of Confederation resulted in a Federal government that was too weak and state governments that were too strong. We tried giving the states lots and lots of power and it didn't work.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
The articles of Confederation resulted in a Federal government that was too weak and state governments that were too strong. We tried giving the states lots and lots of power and it didn't work.
The Articles of Confederation also did not establish a Nation. What they tried was basically a European union of sorts. Each state was its own sovereign entity with very few governing rules established by the confederacy. This would not do for most other countries who wanted some kind of guarantee for making treaties with us as a nation and not hash out the details of a different treaty with each separate state.
 

sonar

Well-Known Member
The articles of Confederation resulted in a Federal government that was too weak and state governments that were too strong. We tried giving the states lots and lots of power and it didn't work.
The Articles of Confederation also did not establish a Nation. What they tried was basically a European union of sorts. Each state was its own sovereign entity with very few governing rules established by the confederacy. This would not do for most other countries who wanted some kind of guarantee for making treaties with us as a nation and not hash out the details of a different treaty with each separate state.
I wasn't implying the Articles were a better system just pointing out that this has been an issue since the adoption of our current constitution. My point was more or less that I feel the federal government and the president specifically have too much power. Look at marijuana prohibition, for example. That should be an issue for the states. Unless of course they decide to draft a constitutional amendment like they had to do with alcohol.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I wasn't implying the Articles were a better system just pointing out that this has been an issue since the adoption of our current constitution. My point was more or less that I feel the federal government and the president specifically have too much power. Look at marijuana prohibition, for example. That should be an issue for the states. Unless of course they decide to draft a constitutional amendment like they had to do with alcohol.

The problem arises when the left has one of it's own in the whitehouse and seeks to give ever more power to that person, and then the right does the very same thing - usually under the auspicies of a war, recall we were admonished under Bush to not criticize "our" command in chief, he needs all the power he can get to "protect us". Wasn't that the way it went?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The most control is supposed to be reserved to the people. Limited powers were allegedly granted for specific things....we see where that lead.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Funny how most of the regulations that hurt small businesses are state and local, yet everyone still thinks we need to give state governments more power.
 

sonar

Well-Known Member
i believe the constitution gives the answer to this question.
The constitution means nothing anymore. They just past a provision as part of the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial under suspicion of being in a terrorist. Don't believe me? Read sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. They love sneaking these things in around the holidays when they think nobody is paying attention.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Funny how most of the regulations that hurt small businesses are state and local, yet everyone still thinks we need to give state governments more power.
Not necessarily more power but I dont want the powers that the states have to be kicked further up the chain to the federal government where they can be made even more draconian.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Funny how most of the regulations that hurt small businesses are state and local, yet everyone still thinks we need to give state governments more power.
Where and how the government power is divided up is almost irrelevant. Shouldn't individual people be more empowered and intrusive governments of all types be less empowered?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Where and how the government power is divided up is almost irrelevant. Shouldn't individual people be more empowered and intrusive governments of all types be less empowered?

Not when one considers that corporations are people.
 
Top