Is it time to eliminate states? Is it time to eliminate the Senate?

[werepossum]

Is it time to eliminate states? The federal government is increasingly powerful, and we just elected the party that promises to make it more so. In my county for instance one can no longer even bring food to one's children/grandchildren in public schools because of Michelle's initiative. Any powers left to the states are merely those the federal government has not yet deigned to seize. The things firmly left to the states' control, such as the definition of marriage, seem to me to be the very things that should be universal in a nation. Most of the Mexican border states are at war with the federal government over whether immigration laws should be enforced. So what real purpose is served by having fifty junior leagues? Would we not be better served by regional governors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate than by electing state legislatures and governors and then fighting the inevitable conflicts out in court?

Regarding the Senate, Senators no longer represent the states' interests, but are elected by popular vote and mostly represent their party and their own interests. Where Senators do manage to work in their states' interests, it's usually to get pork projects at the expense of the nation, such as the F-35 alternative engine program. At best the Senate is hamstrung by it's internal rules from its only unique powers, confirmation of cabinet-level appointees and treaties, and the President increasingly just bypasses them and makes recess appointments which effectively get no investigative hearings at all, much less an up or down vote. The Senate is elected by exact the same rules and serves exactly the same purpose as the House, paying only the barest lip service to the Constitutional separation of powers, and regularly botch their few separate responsibilities.

Seems to me we'd be better off:
1) Eliminating state governments, replacing them with appointed bureaucrats who implement Presidential decrees and Congressional laws so that everyone lives under the same laws. We eliminate turf wars and expensive legal battles with essentially the same results. We also eliminate the electoral college, state and local taxes, and state and local regulations, and establish uniform laws and taxation.

2) Eliminating the Senate, rolling its members into the House and moving its duties to the House. Let SCOTUS judge impeachments, or in case of SCOTUS indictments let the POTUS judge.

As we strain to find new money for new giveaways, why not eliminate redundant levels of government with no real power left anyway?

 

[dank69]

Is it time to eliminate states? The federal government is increasingly powerful, and we just elected the party that promises to make it more so. ...

I just wanted to interupt you right there to say fuck you. I'll read the rest of your TLDR later to see if there are any more fuckwitted statements...

 

[techs]

I just wanted to interupt you right there to say fuck you. I'll read the rest of your TLDR later to see if there are any more fuckwitted statements...

Damn. I couldn't find anything else to add after reading your reply.

 

[lotus503]

Is it time to eliminate states? The federal government is increasingly powerful, and we just elected the party that promises to make it more so. In my county for instance one can no longer even bring food to one's children/grandchildren in public schools because of Michelle's initiative. Any powers left to the states are merely those the federal government has not yet deigned to seize. The things firmly left to the states' control, such as the definition of marriage, seem to me to be the very things that should be universal in a nation. Most of the Mexican border states are at war with the federal government over whether immigration laws should be enforced. So what real purpose is served by having fifty junior leagues? Would we not be better served by regional governors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate than by electing state legislatures and governors and then fighting the inevitable conflicts out in court?

Regarding the Senate, Senators no longer represent the states' interests, but are elected by popular vote and mostly represent their party and their own interests. Where Senators do manage to work in their states' interests, it's usually to get pork projects at the expense of the nation, such as the F-35 alternative engine program. At best the Senate is hamstrung by it's internal rules from its only unique powers, confirmation of cabinet-level appointees and treaties, and the President increasingly just bypasses them and makes recess appointments which effectively get no investigative hearings at all, much less an up or down vote. The Senate is elected by exact the same rules and serves exactly the same purpose as the House, paying only the barest lip service to the Constitutional separation of powers, and regularly botch their few separate responsibilities.

Seems to me we'd be better off:
1) Eliminating state governments, replacing them with appointed bureaucrats who implement Presidential decrees and Congressional laws so that everyone lives under the same laws. We eliminate turf wars and expensive legal battles with essentially the same results. We also eliminate the electoral college, state and local taxes, and state and local regulations, and establish uniform laws and taxation.

2) Eliminating the Senate, rolling its members into the House and moving its duties to the House. Let SCOTUS judge impeachments, or in case of SCOTUS indictments let the POTUS judge.

As we strain to find new money for new giveaways, why not eliminate redundant levels of government with no real power left anyway?

I find this odd, my wife often brings lunch to my 2nd grader and even sits and eats with her.

 

[jhu]

I had to do a double take because I thought it was werepossum thread but reads like an Anarchist420 thread.

 

[techs]

I find this odd, my wife often brings lunch to my 2nd grader and even sits and eats with her.

There has been an excellent peanut harvest and peanut prices are going to be dropping dramatically.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Erudite post-election whining is still post-election whining.

 

[SagaLore]

Sometimes I wish the civil war had ended with the current US split along the middle from the west coast to the east coast. IT would have been interesting to see the results of a democratic republic unified government versus a democratic republic confederacy.

 

[schneiderguy]

If the Federal government actually followed the Constitution and did only the duties assigned to it, we wouldn't be having this problem.

I just wanted to interupt you right there to say fuck you. I'll read the rest of your TLDR later to see if there are any more fuckwitted statements...

Librul butthurt syndrome (LBS) at its finest. If you or a loved one display these symptoms, contact your doctor immediately.

 

[monovillage]

Is it time to eliminate states? The federal government is increasingly powerful, and we just elected the party that promises to make it more so. In my county for instance one can no longer even bring food to one's children/grandchildren in public schools because of Michelle's initiative. Any powers left to the states are merely those the federal government has not yet deigned to seize. The things firmly left to the states' control, such as the definition of marriage, seem to me to be the very things that should be universal in a nation. Most of the Mexican border states are at war with the federal government over whether immigration laws should be enforced. So what real purpose is served by having fifty junior leagues? Would we not be better served by regional governors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate than by electing state legislatures and governors and then fighting the inevitable conflicts out in court?

Regarding the Senate, Senators no longer represent the states' interests, but are elected by popular vote and mostly represent their party and their own interests. Where Senators do manage to work in their states' interests, it's usually to get pork projects at the expense of the nation, such as the F-35 alternative engine program. At best the Senate is hamstrung by it's internal rules from its only unique powers, confirmation of cabinet-level appointees and treaties, and the President increasingly just bypasses them and makes recess appointments which effectively get no investigative hearings at all, much less an up or down vote. The Senate is elected by exact the same rules and serves exactly the same purpose as the House, paying only the barest lip service to the Constitutional separation of powers, and regularly botch their few separate responsibilities.

Seems to me we'd be better off:
1) Eliminating state governments, replacing them with appointed bureaucrats who implement Presidential decrees and Congressional laws so that everyone lives under the same laws. We eliminate turf wars and expensive legal battles with essentially the same results. We also eliminate the electoral college, state and local taxes, and state and local regulations, and establish uniform laws and taxation.

2) Eliminating the Senate, rolling its members into the House and moving its duties to the House. Let SCOTUS judge impeachments, or in case of SCOTUS indictments let the POTUS judge.

As we strain to find new money for new giveaways, why not eliminate redundant levels of government with no real power left anyway?

I'd rather see a strengthening of State and local power and have the Feds actually exercise the powers they're supposed to have and not just the ones they want.

 

[techs]

Grape jelly is best.

 

[Anarchist420]

Regarding the Senate, Senators no longer represent the states' interests, but are elected by popular vote and mostly represent their party and their own interests.

They would still be voting for the union even if they were elected by the State legislatures.

Seems to me we'd be better off: 1) Eliminating state governments, replacing them with appointed bureaucrats who implement Presidential decrees and Congressional laws so that everyone lives under the same laws. We eliminate turf wars and expensive legal battles with essentially the same results. We also eliminate the electoral college, state and local taxes, and state and local regulations, and establish uniform laws and taxation. 2) Eliminating the Senate, rolling its members into the House and moving its duties to the House. Let SCOTUS judge impeachments, or in case of SCOTUS indictments let the POTUS judge. As we strain to find new money for new giveaways, why not eliminate redundant levels of government with no real power left anyway?

We already have uniform laws across the board. Doing away with the States altogether would might not be a bad idea since the Federal govt would just wind up overwhelming itself which would mean the crash would come earlier.

The 14th Amendment (rather than the 17th) was the death of federalism like I said earlier and like Dr. DiLorenzo said even before I did.

Here is a recommended reading. See chapters 43-45 for what why there never should've been any union at all. Remember, that the Constitution was a true counter-revolution against the secessionist Declaration of Independence... "these colonies are of right and ought to be free and independent States".

 

[dank69]

If the Federal government actually followed the Constitution and did only the duties assigned to it, we wouldn't be having this problem.



Librul butthurt syndrome (LBS) at its finest. If you or a loved one display these symptoms, contact your doctor immediately.

Oh Schneider, I'm sorry your boy RP got his ass handed to him in the only polls that mattered. I'm equally sorry your second best option Johnson couldn't get more than 1% of the vote despite having a few good ideas that even I as a diseased librul can agree with. I'll get my ass checked ASAP but I suggest you do the same. Deal?

 

[schneiderguy]

Oh Schneider, I'm sorry your boy RP got his ass handed to him in the only polls that mattered. I'm equally sorry your second best option Johnson couldn't get more than 1% of the vote despite having a few good ideas that even I as a diseased librul can agree with. I'll get my ass checked ASAP but I suggest you do the same. Deal?

Deal

 

[werepossum]

I just wanted to interupt you right there to say fuck you. I'll read the rest of your TLDR later to see if there are any more fuckwitted statements...

From your most learned response I'm unsure if you're denying that the federal government is and has been getting stronger, or if you just find it objectionable to mention it.

I find this odd, my wife often brings lunch to my 2nd grader and even sits and eats with her.

My wife did the same with our youngest grandson in first grade, as did his mother.

Sometimes I wish the civil war had ended with the current US split along the middle from the west coast to the east coast. IT would have been interesting to see the results of a democratic republic unified government versus a democratic republic confederacy.

For one thing, we'd have a Europe dominated by either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, or possibly split between the two. I suspect that we'd have seen a situation analogous to England and Ireland, with one nation at best neutral if not actively helping the Nazis. Which nation would be up for grabs; the North had most of the ethnic Germans and Italians, but the Nazi ethic of Teutonic racial superiority would be more in line with the Confederacy's policy of white racial superiority. Even had both been recruitable to the allied cause, neither could have fully committed to the war; each would have needed to keep resources and troops available to counter the other.

As a general rule, if one maintains that absolutely nothing good would have resulted from the South winning its struggle for secession, one will never be far from right.

 

[dank69]

From your most learned response I'm unsure if you're denying that the federal government is and has been getting stronger, or if you just find it objectionable to mention it.


...

Speaking of learned responses, where exactly did I cut you off? Why did you decide to back up to the first part of the sentence instead of the part where I cut you off?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Is it time to eliminate states? The federal government is increasingly powerful, and we just elected the party that promises to make it more so. In my county for instance one can no longer even bring food to one's children/grandchildren in public schools because of Michelle's initiative. Any powers left to the states are merely those the federal government has not yet deigned to seize. The things firmly left to the states' control, such as the definition of marriage, seem to me to be the very things that should be universal in a nation. Most of the Mexican border states are at war with the federal government over whether immigration laws should be enforced. So what real purpose is served by having fifty junior leagues? Would we not be better served by regional governors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate than by electing state legislatures and governors and then fighting the inevitable conflicts out in court?

Regarding the Senate, Senators no longer represent the states' interests, but are elected by popular vote and mostly represent their party and their own interests. Where Senators do manage to work in their states' interests, it's usually to get pork projects at the expense of the nation, such as the F-35 alternative engine program. At best the Senate is hamstrung by it's internal rules from its only unique powers, confirmation of cabinet-level appointees and treaties, and the President increasingly just bypasses them and makes recess appointments which effectively get no investigative hearings at all, much less an up or down vote. The Senate is elected by exact the same rules and serves exactly the same purpose as the House, paying only the barest lip service to the Constitutional separation of powers, and regularly botch their few separate responsibilities.

Seems to me we'd be better off:
1) Eliminating state governments, replacing them with appointed bureaucrats who implement Presidential decrees and Congressional laws so that everyone lives under the same laws. We eliminate turf wars and expensive legal battles with essentially the same results. We also eliminate the electoral college, state and local taxes, and state and local regulations, and establish uniform laws and taxation.

2) Eliminating the Senate, rolling its members into the House and moving its duties to the House. Let SCOTUS judge impeachments, or in case of SCOTUS indictments let the POTUS judge.

As we strain to find new money for new giveaways, why not eliminate redundant levels of government with no real power left anyway?

You sir are a great american we need more like you and the streets will turn red

 

[dank69]

You sir are a great american we need more like you and the streets will turn red

This is your audience werepossum, tread lightly.

 

[werepossum]

If the Federal government actually followed the Constitution and did only the duties assigned to it, we wouldn't be having this problem.



Librul butthurt syndrome (LBS) at its finest. If you or a loved one display these symptoms, contact your doctor immediately.

I'd rather see a strengthening of State and local power and have the Feds actually exercise the powers they're supposed to have and not just the ones they want.

These are simply not options. If the Democrats decided tomorrow to be the party of Constitutional responsibility and reject all activities not authorized by the Constitution, we would simply replace them with another party. If the Republicans won the White House and a Senatorial super-majority in 2016, we would not return to a Constitutional government. We wouldn't even be noticeably closer to it. The Pubbies controlled the White House, Senate and House for over four years and made no real strides towards reducing government. To the contrary, they increased government. This is the government we as a people want.

Health care is gone as a state responsibility. The EPA and OSHA largely control environmental and occupational regulations. Infrastructure like roads and bridges are still largely under state auspices, but also largely funded with money sent to D.C. and then returned. What then does the state really control? And is that control good for the nation, or bad? Certainly we as a nation don't benefit from a bazillion gasoline blends, or fifty sets of tax codes with which national businesses must comply.

Or to put it a different way, can anyone name anything positive that state governments do that isn't merely a rear guard action delaying what is clearly coming? Hell, in Tennessee most state representatives' successful campaigns included opposition to Obamacare when at most the state can delay its benefits while stopping none of its disadvantages. Single-payer health care, income redistribution, open borders - these are all ideas that were just endorsed by the American voters, and as those who voted for them have the clear advantage in growth rates this is unlikely to change. Is there really a benefit in having a secondary layer of government which is fighting against the prime level of government? Seems to me states are already left with little beyond passing ill-advised laws and giving us fifty different bodies regulating engineers, architects, and even bloody hair cutters. Maybe it's time we have ONE regulating body and a certified American professional can practice anywhere in the country.

 

[monovillage]

These are simply not options. If the Democrats decided tomorrow to be the party of Constitutional responsibility and reject all activities not authorized by the Constitution, we would simply replace them with another party. If the Republicans won the White House and a Senatorial super-majority in 2016, we would not return to a Constitutional government. We wouldn't even be noticeably closer to it. The Pubbies controlled the White House, Senate and House for over four years and made no real strides towards reducing government. To the contrary, they increased government. This is the government we as a people want.

Health care is gone as a state responsibility. The EPA and OSHA largely control environmental and occupational regulations. Infrastructure like roads and bridges are still largely under state auspices, but also largely funded with money sent to D.C. and then returned. What then does the state really control? And is that control good for the nation, or bad? Certainly we as a nation don't benefit from a bazillion gasoline blends, or fifty sets of tax codes with which national businesses must comply.

Or to put it a different way, can anyone name anything positive that state governments do that isn't merely a rear guard action delaying what is clearly coming? Hell, in Tennessee most state representatives' successful campaigns included opposition to Obamacare when at most the state can delay its benefits while stopping none of its disadvantages. Single-payer health care, income redistribution, open borders - these are all ideas that were just endorsed by the American voters, and as those who voted for them have the clear advantage in growth rates this is unlikely to change. Is there really a benefit in having a secondary layer of government which is fighting against the prime level of government? Seems to me states are already left with little beyond passing ill-advised laws and giving us fifty different bodies regulating engineers, architects, and even bloody hair cutters. Maybe it's time we have ONE regulating body and a certified American professional can practice anywhere in the country.

Actually no, it probably makes more sense to dissolve the actual States and make 12 new Regions that would be more homogeneous. Just a matter of time.

 

[Nemesis 1]

This is your audience werepossum, tread lightly.

Tread lightly .. LOL I have nothing to fear . I can't say the same for you ,

 

[yllus]

1) Eliminating state governments, replacing them with appointed bureaucrats who implement Presidential decrees and Congressional laws so that everyone lives under the same laws. We eliminate turf wars and expensive legal battles with essentially the same results. We also eliminate the electoral college, state and local taxes, and state and local regulations, and establish uniform laws and taxation.

2) Eliminating the Senate, rolling its members into the House and moving its duties to the House. Let SCOTUS judge impeachments, or in case of SCOTUS indictments let the POTUS judge.

As we strain to find new money for new giveaways, why not eliminate redundant levels of government with no real power left anyway?

Without some of the rhetoric, I think this is an argument worth making occasionally. The world is becoming more complex and more expensive - economies of scale should be utilized where prudent.

Problem is that blind adherence to mathematics don't really work in the real world - breaking up large populations into provinces has been a pretty good check on governmental abuse to date. There will however come a day in which it's more harm than good.

 

[dank69]

Tread lightly .. LOL I have nothing to fear . I can't say the same for you ,

I wasn't talking to you Nemesis, I was talking to werepossum. I know you aren't afraid, and neither am I. :thumbsup:

 

[werepossum]

Without some of the rhetoric, I think this is an argument worth making occasionally. The world is becoming more complex and more expensive - economies of scale should be utilized where prudent.

Problem is that blind adherence to mathematics don't really work in the real world - breaking up large populations into provinces has been a pretty good check on governmental abuse to date. There will however come a day in which it's more harm than good.

Centralized power is certainly the way the world is going. Just look at Europe; more and more power is being moved up the chain. Our states are going to have less and less power; at some point it's impractical to have the overhead of an elected government at the state level, especially in red states.

Speaking of learned responses, where exactly did I cut you off? Why did you decide to back up to the first part of the sentence instead of the part where I cut you off?

Ummm . . .

WOT?

BTW, I have absolutely no problem with Nemesis "being my audience". He's a good guy.

 

[Brigandier]

Representation needs to increase at the federal level, or more power delegated to the more numerous local representatives of the people.

Right now too few control the power of far too much wealth.