state vs federal power

[Shahaku]

For our US members mostly. Who should make the decisions? Where do you draw the line between what the state does and what the feds do? Your opinion please.

[Denarius]

Re: state vs federal power

Ideally, states should be able to do whatever they want so long as they are conforming to constitution.

[MaskedOne]

Re: state vs federal power

The Feds have a list of I believe 18 responsibilities and the power to mandate anything related to them. Other matters are relegated to the states and anything not explicitly held be either is granted to the People. Now I think that

1) that list might require an update (say, explicitly allow for the funding of an air force) but I'm good with leaving the general system of some issues are Federal and Feds instantly win matters falling in their legitimate purview while other matters are for states and the Feds can sit down and shut up

2) it'd be nice if cheap language tricks weren't adequate to bring the commerce clause to bear in so many places

[thalassa]

Re: state vs federal power

I think it should be like the military...let me explain:

Big Navy sets standards. Individual commands execute programs and implement missions to meet standards.

The purpose of the federal gov't is (and I quote the Constitution for this) to: form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

To this, the Constitution grants the following abilities and responsibilites to Congress (I think these are the 18 MO is talking about):
* to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;*To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
*To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
*To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
*To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
*To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
*To establish post offices and post roads;
*To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
*To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
*To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
*To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
*To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
*To provide and maintain a navy;
*To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
*To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
*To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United *States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
*To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings
*To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(pretty much all of the military stuff is out of date, tbh)

So lets talk about these two: to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution

I don't think you can answer this question without deciding what constitutes as being in the best interests of the general welfare of the United States...

IMO: a healthy and educated produtive people, which means (in this day and age):

*a safe food supply
*affordable access to medical care
*a globally competative education
*clean water
*clean air
*free and safe road ways
*affordable access to public utilities--including the internet
*funding of scientific innovation and patronage of the arts
*funding for education, including college
*preserving wild places from development and enroachment
*managing lands for the use of natural resources
*ensuring and preserving continued biodiverity
*provision for the elderly, disabled, at-risk children
*ensuring that housing is safe, affordable, and fair
*preventing monopolies and financial abuses by corporations and industry
*etc...

As such, I think it should be the role of the Federal gov't to set standards for these things (based on good science not cruddy politics), and the role of the State government to figure out how they can best be carried out in their area.

The government already does most of these things... Don't get me wrong, its not perfect...it needs a ton of work. Some things are done quite well (or at least have been in the past)...scientific innovation, for example. We sent dudes to the moon. We invented (with federal funding, and sometimes by accident) the basics of most of our technology--microwaves, radio, television, internet, walkie talkies, cellular technology (not all of it by the US, but till with gov't monies). The CCC was awesome... Medicare---people complain about it like mad, but its more efficient than private insurances. Either way, these policies were put into place for a reason--because before that sucked. You know why we have a VA (which could do better, but isn't nearly as bad as it could be)? Because the Bonus Army---I'll take a VA that needs improving over that anyday. You know why we have TANF and unemployment insurance? Because Hoovervilles...and I will gladly be patriotic enough to pay my fair share of taxes to make sure we don't have families with no choice except to live in shantytowns (never mind the ethical implications of a people that allow that, the public health issues should be enough), even if it means there are people that milk the system (a problem that has nothing to do with being poor--Enron ring any bells?, and should be the justice system's responsibility--after we put in better safeguards). Education might be good in one state (or one school district) and crud somewhere else (mostly having to do with economics and the resources that are given those schools---including (most importantly) good teachers for a long time).

Laws are a crazy quilt sewn one patch at a time--sometimes there's a gap, sometimes an overlap...somtimes the fabric is holey, and sometimes its too rich. Its because people are like that--we are different, with different priorities, some of which are more selfish than others. Our laws (or government) is a reflection of ourself. When the stiching wears out in one place, we take it apart and sew in something new. Overtime, the fabric styles change...sometimes patches are 10 or 20 or 100 years out of fashion, othertimes they are too fashion forward, and either way, there will always be people that have to use the quilt want to toss the whole darn thing. But for the most part, the quilt keeps an overwhelming majority of some 360 million people warm when its cold outside.

[DanieMarie]

Re: state vs federal power

Why is this for US members only? I think most of us live in countries that delegate some responsibilities to states.....

[thalassa]

Re: state vs federal power

Why is this for US members only? I think most of us live in countries that delegate some responsibilities to states.....

Well, you can post here...but the idea of states rights vs federal rights is one that is a foundational conflict of this nation, and I don't think that shows up in a similar manner in other countries. I could be wrong (Quebec springs to mind), but overall, the issue generally seems to be a US thing.

[DanieMarie]

Re: state vs federal power

Well, you can post here...but the idea of states rights vs federal rights is one that is a foundational conflict of this nation, and I don't think that shows up in a similar manner in other countries. I could be wrong (Quebec springs to mind), but overall, the issue generally seems to be a US thing.

I guess, though the debate does pop up. I agree that we don't have nearly as much of a conflict over "states rights", but there is often a fair bit of debate over whether states should take over management of certain things, whether certain federal laws are fair in diverse parts of the country, state/provincial transfers (huge issues in Canada and Germany, where some states/provinces are vastly richer than others), etc.

[MaskedOne]

Re: state vs federal power

I'm rather fond of a great deal of Thal's list. I'd prefer however that most of the responsibilities and powers on it be explicit instead of implied. Federal and State powers are divided in part as a means of keeping Federal power constrained to areas that it's neccessary. Keeping a language that allows for massive leeway in interpretation can complicate that goal. I'd like to a list of powers such as Thal's explicitly added to the Constitution and various elements of vague language (hello general welfare and possibly hello Commerce Clause) restricted.

Of course, I also want to explicitly shove the entirety of the Bill of Rights and a few other amendments down the throats of the States since some of them apparently believe that 14th Amendment didn't already do that.

[Historyforall]

Re: state vs federal power

Shelby Foote said it best when referencing the American Civil War. Before the war we were "these" United States after we became "the" United States.

It is the single moment and one of the most historically important results of the Civil War (with the whole slavery thing being the top of course). It set the direction for the US and gave tremendous power to the federal govt.

The states rights movement that Southerners have always defended makes it harder for Northern states who are now crying for those rights they fought to prevent. Confusing but the reality is that if you want a weaker central govt. and more state power it comes at the expense of a weaker nation and less freedom for many within those states. This is the lesson of the Civil War.

[MaskedOne]

Re: state vs federal power

I don't necessarily want a weak federal gov. I fully support a federal gov.'t with the power and authority necessary to tell states to sit down, shut up and do what they're told...

as long as the orders it's giving are within its Constitutional authority to give.

I just want to see the limits of its Constitutional authority updated to reflect modern times and clearly defined along with built in deterrents against trying to overstep its authority.

[Shahaku]

Re: state vs federal power

So. I brought this up because we were discussing it at work. I said mostly for US members in the heart of I mostly want this thread to be about fed vs state in the US. I'm not very good with politics and most of the people I know who have an interest are pretty extreme in their politics unfortunately. I'm not. By extreme I mean my husbands mother wants to go back to the original constitution, no amendments, even if that means the return of slaves and the lack of women's rights. My mother on the other hand is extremely progressive. (I think that's the right term, like I said, I'm not good at politics.) We have elections coming up in another couple years and I refuse to vote when I'm not informed enough to make a good decision so that means I'm taking the responsibility to educate myself.

Now my personal opinion on this issue (not being overly well informed) is that the Feds should have the power over national defense, international affairs, and interchange between states. General welfare is a tough one for me. I think that if the Feds regulate it in any way, it should be along the lines of very general guidelines. For instance, every person is guaranteed a right to a roof over their head, food and water. Beyond that, I don't think they should be allowed to make any laws in that vein. That should be the states responsibility. We are so diverse, that I don't think that specific laws are going to work in a broad sense.

Now this is just my opinion right now, and I admit not a very well informed one, which is why I posted this here, cause I'm curious what all of you think on it, cause, hell, I generally respect your opinions so. Yeah. That's all, folks.

[Roknrol]

Re: state vs federal power

For our US members mostly. Who should make the decisions? Where do you draw the line between what the state does and what the feds do? Your opinion please.

The Feds should protect our borders and interstate commerce. Period. The states should have carte blanch to run their state however they please, provided that they do not create problems with our borders and interstate commerce.

[MaskedOne]

Re: state vs federal power

Does your mother in law know what that stance actually means?

Off-hand it potentially loses her protection against self-incrimination and freedom of speech, assembly and religion and it does so very quickly. The Bill of Rights are all Amendments to the Constitution but even if we presume that she doesn't mean those, it's still a problem. The Bill of Rights in its original form didn't bind the States. It took the 14th Amendment to make it binding upon the States. Best case scenario, the Feds are constrained but states are only constrained by their internal Constitutions. Worst case, the Feds cease to be constrained right along with the states. Your mother in law is actually scary with that position.

[Roknrol]

Re: state vs federal power

If you're going to do research on the candidates, wait until about a month before the election. If you don't, you'll find yourself so exhausted by the time you vote that you'll literally vote for just about anyone because everyone has so much bullshit dug up. If you wait, what is already there is available for you to find, plus time will have passed enough for "false alarms" to become evident. For the record, I encourage EVERYONE to vote responsibly and do their own research...the fact that we continue to see the things we see tells me that most people aren't doing that. They are literally throwing away their opportunity to fix what's wrong.

Also - be careful not to get tripped up by "stupid" arguments. Abortion and the death penalty are so close to 50% support most of the time that quite literally any candidate that takes a stance will still be unwilling/unable to do anything once they get into office.

Better to have an honest politician telling you he isn't going to fix what you want, than a dishonest politician taking your money, promising the world, and not even attempting to deliver on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRptGsJWcT8

Gil Fulbright for President!

[Shahaku]

Re: state vs federal power

Masked I have pointed this out on several occassions. She thinks if freedom of religion wasn't in the constitution we'd be a good Catholic country. When I point out we weren't founded by Catholics she ignores me.

Rok, at this point I'm just trying to be aware of the issues and the facts and stats surrounding them. Not the people involved