What do you think the role of our federal government should be? State government?

[Infohawk]

Of course the constitution tried to limit federal power and over time the federal government has garnered more and more power over the states. But if you were re-writing the constitution, what would you make the function of federal and state government?

I don't think the answer is obvious in our modern age. America is strong because in large part we have a huge continental economy. It takes five hours to cross the continental United States. It probably took longer to travel through even the smaller states by horse back in the day.

Personally, I would not change much except with the division of powers except that I would have the federal government preempt more local restraints on commerce (no state insurance regulation) and I would make driving a federal issue (there's no reason we need different vehicle codes in different states).

What I would change is the borders of many of the smaller states. We don't need to reinvent the wheel in 50 different states, but we do want enough states to be able to experiment and contrast and compare different policies. I don't see the need for a state smaller than Florida. There should be a state of "New England" that goes from Rhode Island to Vermont. The Dakotas don't need to be split, etc. Maybe 15 or so states would provide more consistency but allow for experimentation. (Yes, I realize this won't happen.)

 

[0marTheZealot]

I do think that the US is too big to govern effectively. I think it would be better served if we were divided up into various Commonwealths. One policy is not working across the board, especially when a bunch of hicks can derail the entire nation's agenda.

 

[Moonbeam]

The first thing I do when I need cooperation from a hick is to call him one. Then I reach for my bat to continue negotiations. Then I tell the pulp what's going down.

So far I have had no success. I am still focused on hicks, however, to figure out exactly what I'm doing wrong. My latest theory involves paying attention to the grain of the bat.

 

[LunarRay]

Each State has its own Constitution and Government. So what do we need the Federal Government for? Ok.. Wars and Treaties and stuff with foreign nations.. fine... Each State selects from its own Government the folks to be Congress People and we send electors to get a president. They can video conference and all that... If you're a poor state that is your lot and if you're rich state you limit immigration based on need of the State. Want to have Gay marriage... fine, There'll be States that allow that too. We need a Central Court to determine inter State issues... so we set that up like it is. They can video conference too.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could choose which laws we like and don't like and have a place to live where we can be hicks and micks and ticks and even the odd hippy.

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Each State has its own Constitution and Government. So what do we need the Federal Government for? Ok.. Wars and Treaties and stuff with foreign nations.. fine... Each State selects from its own Government the folks to be Congress People and we send electors to get a president. They can video conference and all that... If you're a poor state that is your lot and if you're rich state you limit immigration based on need of the State. Want to have Gay marriage... fine, There'll be States that allow that too. We need a Central Court to determine inter State issues... so we set that up like it is. They can video conference too.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could choose which laws we like and don't like and have a place to live where we can be hicks and micks and ticks and even the odd hippy.

So you are saying you would like to go back to the way our founding fathers envisioned the country. Well except for the video conference thingie.

 

[sandorski]

"We the People" should decide, within limitations(aka, without trampling the Rights of Minorities).

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: sandorski
"We the People" should decide, within limitations(aka, without trampling the Rights of Minorities).

You mean the "Rights of Individuals."

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SilentRunning

Originally posted by: sandorski
"We the People" should decide, within limitations(aka, without trampling the Rights of Minorities).

You mean the "Rights of Individuals."

Both, sure. 1 Person is a Minority.

 

[miketheidiot]

please give my part of north dakota to minnesota. TIA op

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: SilentRunning

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Each State has its own Constitution and Government. So what do we need the Federal Government for? Ok.. Wars and Treaties and stuff with foreign nations.. fine... Each State selects from its own Government the folks to be Congress People and we send electors to get a president. They can video conference and all that... If you're a poor state that is your lot and if you're rich state you limit immigration based on need of the State. Want to have Gay marriage... fine, There'll be States that allow that too. We need a Central Court to determine inter State issues... so we set that up like it is. They can video conference too.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could choose which laws we like and don't like and have a place to live where we can be hicks and micks and ticks and even the odd hippy.

So you are saying you would like to go back to the way our founding fathers envisioned the country. Well except for the video conference thingie.

Alexander Hamilton would disagree, among many others.

Who gives a fuck what the founding fathers wanted, they've been dead for 200 years so their opinion doesn't count for much.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: SilentRunning

So you are saying you would like to go back to the way our founding fathers envisioned the country. Well except for the video conference thingie.

The video thingi is to accept the evolution of technology while sticking with some core fundamentals.. a subtle bit.
I'm no Hamiltonian thinker. I'm not at all in favor of a strong central government except as regards those issues articulated to be so. AND, I'm not at all in favor of Implied Power... delegated power is more to my liking... with the string attached...
I think the citizens of Pa. have lost their right to be what they could be differentiated to be.

I would agree, I think, that California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona might not be States if we had gone down the path of Sovereign States.. Cuz why would Georgia care about The Lone Star State? But so be it, I'd have stayed in NYC and liked it...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: sandorski
"We the People" should decide, within limitations(aka, without trampling the Rights of Minorities).

Our previous Chief Justice Rehnquist said that Plessy was decided correctly and that it is for the majority to decide the rights of the minority.... So women should rule the country!... hehehe

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
[
Alexander Hamilton would disagree, among many others.

Who gives a fuck what the founding fathers wanted, they've been dead for 200 years so their opinion doesn't count for much.

I do Mike, I do!

We are a diverse lot. We don't like to help when we have no voice in the say like sending money from our pocket to some sink hole and then what remains on to what may indeed need help... I prefer to do it directly. I prefer telling Congress what my State will send to pay their minions.. I prefer to vote on going to war... Usually Congress decides and that is me... and you.. Hamilton's Implied Power crap is crap... imo.. It makes for all manner of National Security Agenda that my State don't care too much for..
There are so many issues on this topic I could type for hours... but alas even I know that what I want is not going to happen... Guess I'll settle for a Chocolate Malt...

 

[Siddhartha]

Wasn't the US originally set up that the balance of power was tilted towards the States and the Federa governmentl was comparatively weaker? That system did not work well in response to crises. Then the government was setup so that the Federal government was stronger.

Why would going back to a system that did not work well in the late 18th century be a good option in 21th century? Except as an effort to negate the 2008 election results I do not see the benefit.

Who wants to bet that we will start seeing a increase in calls for term limitations?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Wasn't the US originally set up that the balance of power was tilted towards the States and the Federa governmentl was comparatively weaker? That system did not work well in response to crises. Then the government was setup so that the Federal government was stronger.

Why would going back to a system that did not work well in the late 18th century be a good option in 21th century? Except as an effort to negate the 2008 election results I do not see the benefit.

Who wants to bet that we will start seeing a increase in calls for term limitations?

We evolve slowly but we evolve... Once a president claims implied power and gets away with it.. it forever becomes a Presidential prerogative. I think with the view we have taken regarding say the 14th Amendment and coupled with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution there is no going back... We might just as well not have a State Government. All things are equal.
City Government to deal with very local issues and a Federal Government... I see some State rights being observed but eventually those too get cert from the SCOTUS and we become even more equalized...
Thank god I still have my Irish Passport just in case.. heheheheheh

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Wasn't the US originally set up that the balance of power was tilted towards the States and the Federa governmentl was comparatively weaker? That system did not work well in response to crises. Then the government was setup so that the Federal government was stronger.

Why would going back to a system that did not work well in the late 18th century be a good option in 21th century? Except as an effort to negate the 2008 election results I do not see the benefit.

Who wants to bet that we will start seeing a increase in calls for term limitations?

We evolve slowly but we evolve... Once a president claims implied power and gets away with it.. it forever becomes a Presidential prerogative. I think with the view we have taken regarding say the 14th Amendment and coupled with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution there is no going back... We might just as well not have a State Government. All things are equal.
City Government to deal with very local issues and a Federal Government... I see some State rights being observed but eventually those too get cert from the SCOTUS and we become even more equalized...
Thank god I still have my Irish Passport just in case.. heheheheheh

"All things are equal" is something that would cause you to move to Ireland?

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The first thing I do when I need cooperation from a hick is to call him one. Then I reach for my bat to continue negotiations. Then I tell the pulp what's going down.

So far I have had no success. I am still focused on hicks, however, to figure out exactly what I'm doing wrong. My latest theory involves paying attention to the grain of the bat.

So true, so true :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Who gives a fuck what the founding fathers wanted, they've been dead for 200 years so their opinion doesn't count for much.

I put forth that those wishing to destroy their foundation are wishing to destroy the nation, for which it stands. Many of us will not allow that.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I do think that the US is too big to govern effectively. I think it would be better served if we were divided up into various Commonwealths. One policy is not working across the board, especially when a bunch of hicks can derail the BHO's Socialist nation's agenda.

bigot

Americans are Americans. Glad we have a electoral college.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: SilentRunning

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Each State has its own Constitution and Government. So what do we need the Federal Government for? Ok.. Wars and Treaties and stuff with foreign nations.. fine... Each State selects from its own Government the folks to be Congress People and we send electors to get a president. They can video conference and all that... If you're a poor state that is your lot and if you're rich state you limit immigration based on need of the State. Want to have Gay marriage... fine, There'll be States that allow that too. We need a Central Court to determine inter State issues... so we set that up like it is. They can video conference too.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could choose which laws we like and don't like and have a place to live where we can be hicks and micks and ticks and even the odd hippy.

So you are saying you would like to go back to the way our founding fathers envisioned the country. Well except for the video conference thingie.

Alexander Hamilton would disagree, among many others.

Who gives a fuck what the founding fathers wanted, they've been dead for 200 years so their opinion doesn't count for much.

Yeah, and fuck the Constitution too! I mean, it's over 200 years old, so toss that out the window.

 

[n yusef]

The Founding Fathers had some good ideas. And some bad ideas. They were human; in fact, they were pretty shitty humans (you know, owning slaves and all). Still, American's live under their framework (the Constitution), so it makes sense to consider their ideas. However, we must realize that this is 2009; we are under no obligation to follow the directions of men who were flawed two hundred years ago.

Who gives a fuck what the Founding Fathers wanted? indeed.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

California should be a test run to see if this needs to be done on a larger scale with the nation.

State Constitution needs to be tossed and completely rewritten. On top of that, break the state into 2-3 different states. Let the liberal loons in SF & Napa have their socialist ways without ramming the anit-business, anti-capitalist ways down the entire states throat. Same goes for LA County.

Let them bankrupt themselves and not the entire state.


Time to overhaul the country and let States Rights be majority of rule rather than an oppressive Federal Govt. that many disagree with.

 

[Nemesis 1]

.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Just give california back to mexico and stop all furter migration of the scabs.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
please give my part of north dakota to minnesota. TIA op

We don't want it unless your talking the indian land your still hanging onto against treaty.

MN would at least honor the treaty. After all the Sioux are native to MN . there welcome here more than the white trash from the dakotas