National vs State government

[SteveFromYellowstone]

Why is it assumed by many people that if we gave more power to the states that we would somehow be better off?

Take healthcare for example. The current system puts more power in the hands of the state and prices keep climbing higher and higher. Why shouldn't the federal government be able to step in and set price controls?

Our government failed when a high amount of power was given to the states (Articles of Confederation). Corruption at the state level is harder to detect and more prevalent. States have historically been slow to react to civil rights legislation. IMO, more state power serves to divide rather than unite.

[The 12th Commandment]

Oh boy do I agree. The only thing is that some laws would more closely reflect the opinion of the majority in states where they can't through the feds. See gay marriage.

[ACW]

Price controls=economic disaster.

State lawmakers are closer to the people than feds.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Why is it assumed by many people that if we gave more power to the states that we would somehow be better off?

Take healthcare for example. The current system puts more power in the hands of the state and prices keep climbing higher and higher. Why shouldn't the federal government be able to step in and set price controls?

Our government failed when a high amount of power was given to the states (Articles of Confederation). Corruption at the state level is harder to detect and more prevalent. States have historically been slow to react to civil rights legislation. IMO, more state power serves to divide rather than unite.

a) because citizens have more power to effect change the more local the government.

federalism (i.e. states have certain powers) allows for "experiments" to be done in the states and people would then be able to vote with their feet by moving between states.

c) for every example of "slow reaction" you can point to at the state level, I can point to the federal government keeping around ineffective programs because one region of the country benefits at the expense of another. (Do you think, Iowa would have corn subsidies if they couldn't take them from New Yorkers?)

d) because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We not only have separation of powers horizontally (i.e. legislative, executive and judicial), but also vertically (between the federal government, state governments and the people). Devolving power to local authority keeps too much power out of the hands of too few people.

[Teller]

It's the same reason we have local control of our school systems. The more intimate with it's constituency a government or agency is, the more likely they are to meet the needs/desires of that constituency.

[Smoot Point Really]

The States created the Federal Government... It wasn't the other way around.

[ACW]

It must be stipulated: there ARE cases where federal power should overrule state power.

For example, if a state banned all pornography, SCOTUS should find that a violation of the 1st Amendment.

[LaxBuddy21]

It's the same reason we have local control of our school systems. The more intimate with it's constituency a government or agency is, the more likely they are to meet the needs/desires of that constituency.

Our local educations systems are horrible. With so much diversity from district to district, its really hard when kids get to college because no one is at the same place. Education is one area I think the federal government needs control. We should all be held to the same standards nationally and all have the same educational opportunities no matter where you live.

[Smoot Point Really]

It must be stipulated: there ARE cases where federal power should overrule state power.

For example, if a state banned all pornography, SCOTUS should find that a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The Constitution is very specific... There is no "health care" ammendment... Yet!

[ACW]

The Constitution is very specific... There is no "health care" ammendment... Yet!

Did I say differently?

[twa]

Why is it assumed by many people that if we gave more power to the states that we would somehow be better off?

Because we we believe in the Constitution?

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

[zoony]

Average FBI agent- masters degree, best law enforcement training in the world.

Average sherriff deputy- high school diploma, 50 lbs overweight.

It's little different for the politicians.

[ACW]

because we we believe in the constitution?

The powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively

Ahem... OR TO THE PEOPLE

[Burgold]

This is a really basic philosophical question, but a very good one. It really is about where your cynicism lies. There are some areas where the more local you get clearly the better they understand the problem and better they can respond and hopefully resolve it. Other problems, seem to need a uniform approach and that a constant understanding of right and wrong is better.

The other thing this is about is code words. When a lot of people say "state" they are really thinking more about individual rights. When they say feds they are thinking about collective responsibility. And that's the really tough balancing act of the United States. Where is the overlap between personal responsibility and personal freedom while acknowledging the duty we share to our nation and each other.

[twa]

Yeah, individual rights...after all

[aREDSKIN]

This question is as old as our government. Here's a primer on what was discussed hundreds of years ago.

The Federalist Debates: Balancing Power Between State and Federal Governments

Introduction

This series of activities introduces students to one of the most hotly debated issues during the formation of the American government -how much power the federal government should have - or alternatively, how much liberty states and citizens should have. The lesson begins by tracing the U.S. federal system of government to its roots, established by America's Founding Fathers in the late 18th century, highlighting the controversial issue of state sovereignty versus federal power. Students compare the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, analyzing why weaknesses in the former led to the creation of the latter. Then they examine the resulting system of government formed by the Constitution, investigating the relationship between federal and state governments as they exist today. Finally, students reflect back on history and argue whether they believe Hamilton or Jefferson had the more enduring vision for America.

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=425

[Smoot Point Really]

Did I say differently?

Heh! I was replying to you, but it was more for the benefit of the OP.

[PeterMP]

It's the same reason we have local control of our school systems. The more intimate with it's constituency a government or agency is, the more likely they are to meet the needs/desires of that constituency.

I don't think this is true necessarily for many big issues. It might be true at the super-local level (e.g. county and below), but I'm not sure about that at all (try getting involved in land use issues at the local level and see how well you are able to affect (or stop) change). It also may have been true at some time, but I think certainly over the last 30 years, it hasn't been.

I think there are several data points that would lead one to this conclusion. The fact of the matter is if you ignore "moves up" elected officials at the state level turn over LESS THAN at the federal levels. Last time this topic came up I posted some numbers for various states for govenors. I haven't looked at every state legislator, but for the ones that I have looked at this is true (again correcting for cases where a state legislator for example moves into congressional position).

I don't think by any real true measure that state governments are run better than the federal government that would make this reasonable. There is, for example, no measure that would allow one to conclude that when corrected for size, there is less corruption at the state level than the federal level. I think this is largely the result of entrenched interest and the corruptibilty and the corruption of the system by incumbent politicians to mantain the status quo.

I also think that the certain forces (e.g. companies), with the ability to essentially transfer funds through states in order to influence voting in a given state vs. having to spread resources over the whole country have the advantage at the individual state level where as forces that generally "compete" against them (e.g. different "public" and "non-profit" organizations and different aspects of the press) are better suited for national debates as there ability to raise money (turn a profit for the press) is tied to the number of people likely to be affected.

I know I've done analysis on the state of CA and found based on public opinion polls, you'd expect different environmental regulations to be more harsh as compared to a state like TX than they really are, which to me is strong evidence of an "outside" moderating force that prevents the public opinion poll results from being ensync with the laws of the state.

***EDIT***

Essentially, on many big important issues, corperate America is better off having fights on the state level than on the national level just as the British would have been better off fighting the original 13 colonies on an individual level than a collective level.

[Smoot Point Really]

The other thing this is about is code words. When a lot of people say "state" they are really thinking more about individual rights. When they say feds they are thinking about collective responsibility. And that's the really tough balancing act of the United States. Where is the overlap between personal responsibility and personal freedom while acknowledging the duty we share to our nation and each other.

What responsibility do I have toward the collective? Please define. Where is the collective showing responsibility toward me? If I have responsibilities to provide for the rights of others, I am no longer free. Of course, my rights as a producer mean very little to the collective.

The only powers of the Federal Government I am willing to concede are those specifically identified in the articles and ammendments of th US Constitution.

[Burgold]

What responsibility do I have toward the collective? Please define. Where is the collective showing responsibility toward me? If I have responsibilities to provide for the rights of others, I am no longer free. Of course, my rights as a producer mean very little to the collective.

The only powers of the Federal Government I am willing to concede are those specifically identified in the articles and ammendments of th US Constitution.

Well, there's the responsibility of the citizen to form a militia in times of national danger. There's the responsibility of a citizen to do jury duty, to be a police officer, or judge. You have a duty to vote and participate in the democratic process. You have a duty to pay taxes so that needed services can be provided that protect and benefit not only you, but your neighbors.

This question is the fundamental problem I have with extreme Conservative philosophy. Humans are essentially pack animals. We were designed to need each other and work together. You are nowhere close to self-sufficient and yet you protest to a completely self-centric statement that would lead to utter anarchy and failure of the country and the human race.

You have an absolute responsibility to help safeguard the rights of others. Without that, there is no freedom. The moment it's every man for himself there is no United States. There's a reason that they chose the word "United"

[cedk]

Why is it assumed by many people that if we gave more power to the states that we would somehow be better off?.................................

It is assumed by me that we are better off with 50 states addressing a problem.

The possibility of 50 solutions. Then the common sense of other states adopting what solution is working best.

Were the federal level it would be one size fits all. One never changing solution..

Is just one reason I like state power baby!:laugh:

To me its Politicians playing politics is the biggest problem.

Blame the evil corporations or blame the evil rich!

Blame anybody and everybody.

But what ever you do don’t blame my party or me!!! :beatdeadhorse:

[twa]

There's a reason that they chose the word "United"

And a different reason they put down secession by blood and fire:evilg:

[Bang]

What responsibility do I have toward the collective? Please define. Where is the collective showing responsibility toward me?

This would indicate to me that you have no concept of Country. Country is a collective. We are a society with like notions about freedom and liberty. Granted, we all may disagree as to how the Republic should be administered, but we all are part of the collective.

If you believe that the country is just based on the individual, I must seriously disagree. To steal a corny Star Trek movie line, when it comes to country, the good of the many outweigh the good of the individual. If we work to further the good of our country, that will always relate to the good of the individual. If we all recognize that our collective good is based on individuals with a common cause, we can all prosper, and we can all progress. And we can do so within the framework of the American Dream.

(Meaning: hard work is rewarded, free rides are not expected, we all pitch in where necessary and we recognize that as countrymen we are all related.)

I liken this to the attitude that prevailed during World War II.. perhaps the last great crisis that the entire world faced together. When the threat was imminent, we all pulled together. Our country definitely had dissent, and we definitely had questions, but when brass tacks came down, we all stood together. Not just the individual citizens, but our officials, our media, our industry,, all of our society recognized the gravity of the situation and everyone did their part.

I doubt if we could ever do that again, and that is pretty sad.

Bottom line: If we didn't view our lives so selfishly, we would all benefit. You and I are both entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But to achieve and protect that ideal, you rely on me as much as I rely on you as much as we rely on the next guy, etc. We do NOT stand alone.

I recall a thread about Service Learning in high schools. A great many people likened it to communism, socialism, all the bad words. Fact is there's nothing wrong with public service. There's not a thing wrong with instilling a sense of community in our youth. It used to be something all of our citizens recognized, and now that people don't, they feel that compelling our citizens to realize this is somehow a bad thing. For example: I am not a believer in God, but I believe one of the things that has led to a disintegration of the feelings of community is the fact that we don't go to church so much anymore. It gave us a sense of community, we knew our neighbors, we recognized the drive that founded our towns and cities. It's a hell of a lot harder to be selfish when you know the people around you.

I am all for individual liberty, and I am all for individual choice. But if every individual viewed our freedoms as an absolution of our responsibility to one another, we fragment and dissolve into nothing.

This is the greatest nation on Earth. We may lack in a lot of things, but the fact is the ideal of America is still the shining beacon of hope on this planet. I fear that we've taken this for granted and as such have allowed our own sense of what that means to erode.

~Bang

[Bang]

Now that I've finished preaching.. the states and fed should work in concert. Our country has progressed beyond the point of individual state autonomy as envisioned two centures ago.

I think we have forgottten that in this country our government (town, county, state fed, wahatever) is representative of WE the PEOPLE. That means die hard conservatives like ThinSKin, and die hard liberals like Burgold. (for example) We have the most important thing in common in that we are ALL countrymen. It's time we reminded ourselves of this. If we realize that, then the "government" becomes something other than the enemy.

Of course, that means that we have to remind THEM that is what they are supposed to be. The most important "special interest" is the American citizen.

It's all about integrity and a commitment to the American ideal

~Bang

[twa]

Preach on brother

It is all about balance and the power of three's.

Executive/legislative/Judicial all serve as a counter to each other,just as the individual/State/Fed should.

Any one of these can throw things out of balance,yet all play a critical role.

You can't have freedom w/o responsibility and a system of justice