Making sense of the election, 3 weeks away.

[rob19]

Of course slavery is a dramatic example, but Creationism isn't. Even on the state level, it wouldn't necessarily need 51% to pass. It would just need to pass through the local legislature. That's the kind of thing you risk by giving the states too much power. It needs to be a balance of power between the state and federal level. Let the states govern themselves as much as possible, but have the federal government there when you get these insane people who try to teach that Dinosaurs and people lived at the same time...

I agree absolutely, but who's keeping the federal government in check? The Texas standard that Walrus mentioned, did the federal government stop it? Gay marriage should be legal, but the federal government hasn't stepped in and done anything. The drug war is a failure, but it hasn't stopped. So I don't know that the federal government is currently doing the job you say it should be.

[Locke]

I agree absolutely, but who's keeping the federal government in check? The Texas standard that Walrus mentioned, did the federal government stop it? Gay marriage should be legal, but the federal government hasn't stepped in and done anything. The drug war is a failure, but it hasn't stopped. So I don't know that the federal government is currently doing the job you say it should be.

Ideally, the 3 separate branches keep each other in check. That doesn't seem to work very well when the sides refuse to work with each other, though...

[rob19]

I can certainly understand why people would want almost everything that isn't expressly written in the constitution to be governed by the states because I get the feeling the federal government isn't really being checked by anything at this point. Unfortunately I can also understand that the population as a whole might not have the collective intelligence to make that work without the occasional state wanting to teach about the magical doings of Jesus in school. Walrus mentions the right to privacy but I don't find it likely that any state is going to implement any measures to invade privacy any more-so than the federal government has already done with things like the patriot act; could be wrong I suppose, don't know who'd vote for it though.

I would be surprised if there'd be any republicans who disagree with the premise of a more state-centric government. Though I suppose a lot of them just use that "small government" mantra because it sounds good. It does annoy me that Romney's a "small government" republican who wants to overstep states rights in regards to medical cannabis... doesn't sound like small government to me.

[TrojanFin]

Ideally, the 3 separate branches keep each other in check. That doesn't seem to work very well when the sides refuse to work with each other, though...

It also doesn't work very well when the Executive branch manages everything though czars and the POTUS ignores his Congress and issues executive orders as a means to get around those decisions he doesn't agree with.

[phins_4_ever]

It also doesn't work very well when the Executive branch manages everything though czars and the POTUS ignores his Congress and issues executive orders as a means to get around those decisions he doesn't agree with.

But the Bush years are over ......
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Buddy]

Exactly. Those kinds of things are precisely the danger. Now, some things like slavery are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, and unless I'm mistaken only the poster Buddy is an anti-federalist around here. But teaching Creationism is a great example. Outlawing soft drinks or other kinds of "unacceptable" foods would be another (your choice of food isn't "speech", it's not discrimination and it's not a civil right).

Wow, I guess that I made an impression. I wouldn't say that i am an anti-federalist as much as a constitutionalist and believer in the tenth amendment. You are right though, I would say that use of fuels, soft drinks, or setting forth a curriculum for schools (outside of setting very basic standards that constitute acceptable minimum levels of achievement) is none of the federal government's business. The federal government has a critical role in this Republic but state's rights and their unique but limited sovereignty is also critical. Read the "Federalist Papers" and you will see that this balance has been argued for the entire history of our country and resolving these arguments was crucial to getting ratification for the constitution. It is still critical for maintaining our Republic.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Locke]

It also doesn't work very well when the Executive branch manages everything though czars and the POTUS ignores his Congress and issues executive orders as a means to get around those decisions he doesn't agree with.

Thanks for highlighting my point precisely...

[TheWalrus]

Wow, I guess that I made an impression. I wouldn't say that i am an anti-federalist as much as a constitutionalist and believer in the tenth amendment.

Believing as strongly as you do in the tenth amendment qualifies you as an anti-federalist, at least in my book. You think it is/was wrong for the federal government to overrule the state of Virginia on miscegenation. That's a fairly clear red line case to me. I mean, I don't consider it name calling or anything (after all, Jefferson was an anti-federalist). I just think that's the proper term for interpreting the Constitution and the powers of the federal government so narrowly.

I mean, the first amendment, for example, says there should be no law abridging the right to free speech. Does that mean it should not be illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater, or to engage in libel or slander? Taking the constitution completely at it's word and not interpreting it's meaning is bizarre, at least to me. Even originalists interpret.

You are right though, I would say that use of fuels, soft drinks, or setting forth a curriculum for schools (outside of setting very basic standards that constitute acceptable minimum levels of achievement) is none of the federal government's business. The federal government has a critical role in this Republic but state's rights and their unique but limited sovereignty is also critical. Read the "Federalist Papers" and you will see that this balance has been argued for the entire history of our country and resolving these arguments was crucial to getting ratification for the constitution. It is still critical for maintaining our Republic.

I have read the Federal Papers, actually. And the anti-Federalist papers. This was in high school, mind you, but I still have the books and every time I look at them I think "why the **** did I keep these?" Then right after I think, "I should probably read these again." But then I don't.

[TheWalrus]

I agree absolutely, but who's keeping the federal government in check? The Texas standard that Walrus mentioned, did the federal government stop it? Gay marriage should be legal, but the federal government hasn't stepped in and done anything. The drug war is a failure, but it hasn't stopped. So I don't know that the federal government is currently doing the job you say it should be.

But it has in other cases. The Civil Rights Act, for example.