Should states in the USA have the power to nullify federal laws?

 

After all, in the beginning, the federal government existed because of the states and still does. So, should states have more power? Explain.

No.

I think they should. The 10th amendment gives the states any powers not listed in the Constitution. However, the Federal government is denying states many powers that are not in the Constitution.

What the hell? Have you ever even looked at the Constitution?

No.

you mean let them be their own countries? :P

Nah.

No, then what's the point of a federal gov't?

No! Then all the states would become more like miniature countries. Each would be completely different. Some would become allies and some enemies. We might even have another civil war. :ohnoes: Not a pleasant thought.

 

 

 

Good discussion topic anyway

would you rather have a government that has more power? Why?

 

Now, I am not saying that states should have that much power, I am just saying should states have the power that was originally granted to them by the constitution?

What the hell? Have you ever even looked at the Constitution?

 

Now, that is a stupid question. If I had never looked at the constitution I probably wouldn't even know what state right's are.

More centralization and unity. If every state had it's own laws they might even have their own military. what's better 50 small armies or one big one?

I say no.

Good lord, read original post. Explain why or why not.

If your gonna say no say why. If you say yes explain that too.

More centralization and unity. If every state had it's own laws they might even have their own military. what's better 50 small armies or one big one?

 

According to the constitution defense of our country belongs to Government...specifically to the legislative branch, for they are the ones who raise and fund the army.

But the states would have the power to nullify that. :? So they could, have an army. Not saying that they would. Just saying they could.

Oh, and would the constitution be considered a federal law?

ok, good point. But what if the issue was decided by a group of states rather than just one state, if you follow me.

I am amazed at the sheer number of people in this thread who are going to fail high school civics.

 

 

 

The states are 50 individual governments held together by one Federal government. That's why we call it the United STATES. The role of the federal government is to relegate interstate commerce, protect the states, relegate international commerce, provide a unified foreign diplomatic front...etc. Basically gelling the 50 individual governments together.

 

 

 

The 10th Amendment, last Amendment to the Bill of Rights:

 

 

 

All states are granted any power not defined by the Constitution.

 

 

 

To the OP: States can currently nullify any law. Two-Thirds of all 50 states must ratify any new Federal Law.

 

 

 

More centralization and unity. If every state had it's own laws they might even have their own military. what's better 50 small armies or one big one?

 

 

 

We already have 50 small armies. See the National Guard. Most of our troops in Iraq are Guardsmen, which means that the States are fighting the war, not the Fed.

 

 

I am just saying should states have the power that was originally granted to them by the constitution?

 

 

 

If they are not getting those powers, the Federal government is violating the 10th Amendment.

 

 

 

No! Then all the states would become more like miniature countries. Each would be completely different. Some would become allies and some enemies. We might even have another civil war

 

 

 

That's the role of the Federal government. Say Tennessee wants to send goods to Kentucky. Without the Fed, they might have two different currencies, have different ideas of what money is worth, levee huge tariffs. That's how the Fed relegates Interstate commerce.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, I am conservative. I believe the 50 states should have more powers. The Federal government is already interfering too much (no thanks to Bush) and any liberal President is only going to make it worse.

Yes. Think of it as this way, the author is a state and Off-Topic is the USA. If the State was allowed, he could go away and do his homework by himself, without having to be constricted by the OT Forum.

No need to bash intelligence of other people.

 

Plus 8th grade history classes barely scratch the surface of the constitution and all things related

I see your point, but please, no need to flame. I am simply gathering opinions.I,too, am conservative..and wish to see more power to the states.

 

 

 

Keep in mind though, we were founded as a republic not a democracy.

 

 

 

Regarding the post about violating the constitution.

 

-The Judicial Branch has already violated that. The Judicial branch has no right to make laws. Recall, if you will, the law they made; No person under the age of 18 could be given the death penalty.

 

If they can throw this out with no problem what is keeping them from throwing out the rest of Constitution?

The judicial branch can decide if laws are "constitutional" or not.

 

If a case arrives to them that shows the law is unconstitutional.

I did not mean to flame. However, knowing the difference between a Republic and a Democracy is integral to civics. If you polled the vast majority of Americans, of the above they would pick Democracy as the type of government the U.S. has, but they are wrong.