States.

Post Reply New Topic

Right now there's such an emphasis on states and states rights versus a centralized government but think for a moment. Doesn't the states cause division and even more government than necessary? They just add another expensive layer of government. I would argue we need less state government.

The problem would be the Federal government couldn't possibly know the needs of a particular state as well as the people that are already involved with that state's business and people everyday, as well as a state's government, which also has representatives from every area of the state. This is essential.

In order to have equivalent representation for the people you would have to essentially duplicate the efforts all ready in place.

So what's the point? The Federal government is all ready over taxed and doing a terrible job. I wouldn't be interested in having someone from Washington collecting my local taxes and (trying) to redistribute them across the entire country. That would be a nightmare.

You wouldn't have states. You would have a centralized government. You might even have more freedom and you would certainly have more money.

Certainly don't see how that would happen.

The Federal government is already too top heavy and inefficient. Trying to make it even larger would be a disaster.

I can just imagine how the government would add another layer of bureaucracy to what's already in place...we would probably end up with a bloated overstuffed government like Russia where there's ALWAYS strife between the government and individual communities....Perhaps we could create another Ukraine situation??? NO THANKS.

If you try to take away local control of the government you'll cause nothing but problems...look around the world if you don't believe me.

Maybe one of the reasons the federal government is so expensive is because of demands made by states.

Even the federalists knew that the states created the federal government, not the other way around. The states have the authority to tell the federal government to take a hike on most matters (see the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America and the idea of nullification of unconstitutional federal laws). Where the states lose their authority under the Tenth Amendment, the People gain theirs under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.

So, no, the current federal government has less understanding about its place in the nation than ever before. If it pushes too far, watch for the First, Second, Ninth and Tenth amendments to "correct" them.

??????
THIS is "one of the reasons the federal government is so expensive" and it has nothing to do with the states, or their welfare.

The Federal government now receives money they like to, mostly, to spend on war and war machines: Aircraft carriers in commission: RUSSIA..1 CHINA..1 U.K...1 U.S.A...19

I am not interested in promoting this. Many people would agree this money should be spent on the welfare of the people not saber rattling and illegal interference in other nations business (like Hillary likes to do). I imagine you actually agree.

The centralized state is step 1 to tyranny, that is the very definition of anti-American

The US was founded as federal democratic republic, if you want some other form of government then leave.

Just from the outside, I'd almost rather the coalition became looser, both from my own principles and my understanding of the Constitution. It seems like the tenth amendment is rather unfashionable at the moment. In many ways this suits one set of my principles - it's been used to guarantee certain rights which the writers of the constitution did not believe in but that their intellectual successors do - but it's potentially dangerous and inefficient down the road.

Perhaps I've got this backwards though; perhaps the results which placing little emphasis on the tenth amendment have achieved justify a federal government with a strong degree of control over state governments, and I should revise my principles accordingly. Certainly doesn't seem like the states are necessarily ideally arranged. States with big urban-rural divides (New York, Texas, Florida, presumably Illinois) probably don't work too well for a large portion of their inhabitants. How easy is succeeding from a state but remaining part of the union?

The Supreme Court ruled that the 10th Amendment is a truism way back in the 30's. You could abolish it with literally no effect on US law.

The Founders trusted that, after the federal government determined its limits, all other lawful ideas could "fit" beside the federal delegations of authority. And, yes, they knew that it would involve the idea of a state's right to secede from the federation (see Jefferson and Madison within the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799).

But, changing the Constitution for the United States of America requires specific ways to amend or repeal parts of the Constitution. The federal Supreme Court isn't included as a lawful method to change the Constitution.

But it has the highest authority of constitutional interpretation. My point is that the 10th Amendment has already been ruled to be self-evident, a truism, and that there's no grounds for anyone to specifically object to it.

Another effect of statelessness could be, without competition for population, most would cluster around large urban area with vast expanses of scarcely populated tracts of land where animals could live and would remain largely undeveloped.

agenda 21

they want to drive everybody into cities while the rich own all the land

if they ever touched any of this I would advocate immediate secession

Welcome to most western states.