Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

 

Yeah, I've been playing Call of Duty, too.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

 

Yeah, I've been playing Call of Duty, too.

 

A true statment,no matter where it appears mind you.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

 

Yeah, I've been playing Call of Duty, too.

 

A true statment,no matter where it appears mind you.

 

Couldn't agree more, but when someone merely quotes it, without elaboration of their own opinion and/or use of the quote, reeks only of pretentiousness and self-promotion through knowledge.

What I am trying to say is that the Federal Government has too much power. Ok the states have the power to take a federal law to court but not necessarily nullify it. Plus, since the gov't has more powered than what is given them, if it did go to the Supreme Court it would probably be dismissed within a couple of hours.

 

I would also like to point out the Nullification Crisis during Andrew Jackson's Presidency. South Carolina tried to nullify a law and Mr. President sent the army to enforce it.

 

 

 

How, exactly, does the federal government have more power than what is granted them by the Constitution? An example would work well.

 

 

 

The court system as set up by the Constitution consists of exactly one court: the Supreme Court. All other courts are created at the discretion of Congress. And they created the inferior courts in order to relieve the Supreme Court of the masses of cases that arise every year. The Supreme Court sees a very select range of cases. It is extremely difficult for a case to make it all the way to the SC, because it must have great significance to the law to make it that far. And once it did, what could possibly prompt it to be dropped within hours? A case that would be dismissed that quickly would not make it to the Court of Appeals, much less the SC.

 

 

 

The idea that states can singularly rise up and declare a federal law nullified is very Lockean, and is extremely rash and unapplicable in the modern context. If any one state were to do such a thing, like South Carolina did, it would destroy the idea of a federal government, which the Framers deemed necessaryfor the survival of the United States. If states had this power, how are we any different from a loose confederation of individual countries with all the power of a sovereign nation? Wait, that's what we were under the Articles of Confederation? No wonder they were scrapped.

For the third or fourth time:

 

 

 

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

 

 

 

This debate has raged since the conception of the nation (Hamilton and Jefferson anyone?) and was one of the many reasons that caused the War for Southern Independence (more commonly known as the American Civil War). This debate will continue to rage, but one must look at the facts in the past.

 

 

 

First, the Articles of Confederation. Great addition to the Constitution, but as the stand alone Constitution it was designed to be it wouldn't be too effective with little federal intervention.

 

 

 

Second, there was a time when the United States had just won their independence and then were struggling with how to balance a federal power. During that time, the states had quite a bit of power and them not wanting to give up that power contributed to the long Constitutional delegations.

 

 

 

Third, remember when States each had their own currency? Of course you don't, but trade was hard and limited. Nowadays, it's all about money and if a State would refute a trade law passed by the federal government, the people pulling the strings wouldn't be too happy.

 

 

 

Fourth, the good ole Confederacy. They were incredibly unstable and if they had won the war, none of them would have stayed together very long and would have left themselves wide open for being conquered by the Union and/or the prominent European powers struggling to keep their footholds in the North American Continent.

 

 

 

In a Union like the United States, too much state power is a recipe for disaster and instability. With Congress, Senate, and the Executive powers, if a law gets passed the majority thinks it's best for the country (or the people putting money in their pockets). To preserve balance and fairness, a state cannot simplly brush off a federal law. States still hold some power, but weakening the federal government just to give States some extra power would be weakening the glue that keeps this nation together.

This is more the way we have it in Canada. One of our provinces(Quebec)

 

still hasn't ratified and been signed into the constitution. There is a federal seperatist party. And we're still rolling along.

The main problem I see with this is that I guarantee you that the first thing some states would abolish is Federal taxes. This means that there would be no (or at least significantly less) funding for the federal government. No funding means no salaries means no people working means no federal government. If states are given the authority to pick and choose the laws they want to follow then I don't really see the point of having a federal government at all.

This is more the way we have it in Canada. One of our provinces(Quebec)

 

still hasn't ratified and been signed into the constitution. There is a federal seperatist party. And we're still rolling along.

 

 

 

As I understood though, Quebec is trying to become a country of it's own and has considerable public/political backing. No such endeavour is happening in the U.S. at the moment.

This is more the way we have it in Canada. One of our provinces(Quebec)

 

still hasn't ratified and been signed into the constitution. There is a federal seperatist party. And we're still rolling along.

 

 

 

As I understood though, Quebec is trying to become a country of it's own and has considerable public/political backing. No such endeavour is happening in the U.S. at the moment.

 

 

 

No real reason for it, though. Unless you count California falling into the ocean in 30 years. At the moment all the states are happy with their powers (although they shouldn't be :evil: ). So the only separating in the works now is California taking a dip.

This is more the way we have it in Canada. One of our provinces(Quebec)

 

still hasn't ratified and been signed into the constitution. There is a federal seperatist party. And we're still rolling along.

 

 

 

As I understood though, Quebec is trying to become a country of it's own and has considerable public/political backing. No such endeavour is happening in the U.S. at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

They've been trying for over 100 years, i dont think it's happening anytime soon.

nope

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Some powers are taken away and dealt with in Washington for pragmatic reasons. I am for a devoultion of power and decentralisation, but in the constitution some things are no longer representative of the modern world. There is no real statewide economy anymore, the idea that a state would regulate it by itself is not operable. Its not unconstitutional, its sensible.

Long live the Supremacy Clause.

What would be the point of the Federal government enacting any laws then? And what would stop, say, Florida from declaring war on another state or country?

no, there will be another civil war :wall:

Interestingly enough, we just finished this topic in my own AP US class.

 

 

 

General idea was NO, the States did NOT form the government, but the government was formed by the words "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union"(preamble of the constitution). The people represent the nation as a whole, not the states. If it wasn't mentioned already, the States vs Federal powers is an age old debate, since the times of states rights advocates Jefferson and Calhoun.

 

 

 

First note the Supreme Court case McCulloh vs Maryland of 1819, where Maryland tried to tax the Second Bank of the US. The Supreme Court ruled that the implied powers under the elastic clause of the constitution allowed all necessary and proper measures to be taken by government. And second, no single state could impede any such action taken by the government. Quite simply, ALL federal decisions were supreme and higher than those of a state.

 

 

 

Now let's look back to the Jacksonian era at 1831, where South Carolina nullified the Federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. Jackson in response intended to use military force, while South Carolina threatened secession. Eventually there was a compromise, but The President's Nullification Proclamation issued by Jackson held some interesting points:

 

The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through the State legislatures, in making the compact, to meet and discuss its provisions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those provisions; but the terms used in its construction show it to be a government in which the people of all the States collectively are represented. We are ONE PEOPLE in the choice of the President and Vice President. Here the States have no other agency than to direct the mode in which the vote shall be given.

 

The rest of the speech

 

 

 

Main idea? The United States is NOT a confederation of states, it is one and a unified nation, formed and operated by the people as a whole, not the states as a whole. The state governments are merely inferior subgovernments for regional organization at this point, and have no power over the Federal government, which is in reality the entire nation, and all the people and states as one.

 

PS: I got this info out of my various textbooks by the way, and I feel really geeky doing this on a friday night. If you'll excuse me, I'll redeem myself by doing something...less geeky.

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

 

 

 

yeah.. :-s

I could see alot of advantages to it if states were given more freedom in forming laws. One being a better sense of globalization, and more radical and effective changes in laws as well as renewal in voter interest.

That could lead to seperation of some states from the US?

 

 

 

No.

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

 

 

 

yeah.. :-s

 

 

 

A federal government would mean there would be a balance of power between Washington and the other states. Thats why in the constitution, states have more power over what decisions are made then they do in reality, because the scales are tipped to a centralized power in Washington.

And what would stop, say, Florida from declaring war on another state or country?

 

 

 

I don't know why people assume extended freedom somehow automatically brutalizes the people within that country to support wars and turn against each other.

 

 

 

Just recently in Europe, Montenegro split away from it's host country Serbia. (And Kosovo is doing the same as we speak, the central government at Belgrade is going nearly bankrupt if also the area of Vojvodina decides to declade independence)

 

 

 

Are they declaring wars or crumbling into a civil war? They're just a group of people who voted to make their state an independent country.

 

 

 

P.S: Even if states in the USA gained more power, it would still be in their best interests to at least have a president who represents all of the states, than 50 different presidents for each state.