Honest Question for Democrats

[A18]

Why MUST everything be federal?

You know, a lot of Democratic governors and state legislatures are demanding a tax increase that they could implement themselves.

What is it that Republicans want to do that would actually hurt your state in any way?

[David S]

Why MUST everything be federal?

You know, a lot of Democratic governors and state legislatures are demanding a tax increase that they could implement themselves.

What is it that Republicans want to do that would actually hurt your state in any way?

That's a good point Philip. The main reason for the Federal government is for the common defense. To that you can add a few other simple duties such as the Post Office, Patent Office, and Treasury. Most other things are left to the states. Then the people of each state have better control over what is going on in their state. Also people can vote with their feet i.e. if you don't like what your state is doing you can move to another. Finally
each state is like an experiment. When one state finds a successful way of doing something others can follow suit if they want to.

[A18]

And those functions are ways in which the states relate to each other; kind of like free trade agreements.

I'd like to get a Democratic response to this, so I'll edit the title.

[Gabu]

I'm not sure how to answer this, since I don't think everything should be federal, or even most things.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

As much as Republicans yabber about states' rights, it's them who's robbed the states of their rights. They robbed the right of California to prohibit big banks from charging excessive fees on their customers. They robbed the right of Oregon to allow death with dignity after it was approved by voters. They stole the right of Florida to have its own high court rule on the election. And now they want to pass a federal right-to-scab law to rob the rights of states that don't want a law like this. Oh, and I almost forgot the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[A18]

Florida's high court ruled. Unfortunately for them, it's the Florida legislature's right to appoint electors.

So in other words, you support the right of state judges to make BS decisions, but not the rights of state legislatures.

Marriage amendment strikes down judicial activism. And has to be ratified by the STATES, and you could get all 50 to do it.

[7,052,770]

Marriage amendment strikes down judicial activism. And has to be ratified by the STATES, and you could get all 50 to do it.

I doubt that seriously.  Maybe 38, but certainly not all 50.

[Wakie]

Florida's high court ruled. Unfortunately for them, it's the Florida legislature's right to appoint electors.

So in other words, you support the right of state judges to make BS decisions, but not the rights of state legislatures.

Marriage amendment strikes down judicial activism. And has to be ratified by the STATES, and you could get all 50 to do it.

The right of states to determine how their electors are chosen was defeated in 2000 when the US Supreme Court overturned that FL Supreme Court.  State's rights is an illusion.

I agree, not everything should be federal.  But some things (National Defense for example) should be.  And for those things the entire nation should foot the bill.

[A18]

The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court could not make new legislation.

It would be easy to get all 50. None of them have ever passed gay 'marriage' legislation.

[raggage]

Why MUST everything be federal?

You know, a lot of Democratic governors and state legislatures are demanding a tax increase that they could implement themselves.

What is it that Republicans want to do that would actually hurt your state in any way?

Personally I have no problem with more power being allocated to the state governments, as long as the Federal Government remains paramount. We must remember that we are Americans first Califonian/Ohioans/Hawaiians second.

[John Dibble]

Why MUST everything be federal?

You know, a lot of Democratic governors and state legislatures are demanding a tax increase that they could implement themselves.

What is it that Republicans want to do that would actually hurt your state in any way?

Personally I have no problem with more power being allocated to the state governments, as long as the Federal Government remains paramount. We must remember that we are Americans first Califonian/Ohioans/Hawaiians second.

That's not how they felt back when the country was founded.

[Gabu]

None of them have ever passed gay 'marriage' legislation.

That doesn't really mean that they'll all pass anti-gay marriage legislation, though.

[raggage]

Why MUST everything be federal?

You know, a lot of Democratic governors and state legislatures are demanding a tax increase that they could implement themselves.

What is it that Republicans want to do that would actually hurt your state in any way?

Personally I have no problem with more power being allocated to the state governments, as long as the Federal Government remains paramount. We must remember that we are Americans first Califonian/Ohioans/Hawaiians second.

That's not how they felt back when the country was founded.

Times have changed. America would not be where it is today if not for the federal system asserting itself. Imagine if the states remained separate... I'd love to see Rhode Island or Alabama survive as a soverign entity.

[John Dibble]

Why MUST everything be federal?

You know, a lot of Democratic governors and state legislatures are demanding a tax increase that they could implement themselves.

What is it that Republicans want to do that would actually hurt your state in any way?

Personally I have no problem with more power being allocated to the state governments, as long as the Federal Government remains paramount. We must remember that we are Americans first Califonian/Ohioans/Hawaiians second.

That's not how they felt back when the country was founded.

Times have changed. America would not be where it is today if not for the federal system asserting itself. Imagine if the states remained separate... I'd love to see Rhode Island or Alabama survive as a soverign entity.

That's why the original system the colonies had didn't work(confederacy). The federal government is important, I'm not denying that. The thing is though, I don't think it has a place in domestic issues - education for instance(we get things like 'No Child Left Behind' from them). The federal government should stick to military, foreign affairs, post-office, printing money, and helping resolve conflicts between states if needed. Keep it to the necessary functions such as those and let the states sort out the rest of it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually, there are a considerable number of moderately conservative Democrats at the local level who don't go along with the nationalization of everything.

Former Sherrif Mack was a Democrat.

[raggage]

Why MUST everything be federal?

You know, a lot of Democratic governors and state legislatures are demanding a tax increase that they could implement themselves.

What is it that Republicans want to do that would actually hurt your state in any way?

Personally I have no problem with more power being allocated to the state governments, as long as the Federal Government remains paramount. We must remember that we are Americans first Califonian/Ohioans/Hawaiians second.

That's not how they felt back when the country was founded.

Times have changed. America would not be where it is today if not for the federal system asserting itself. Imagine if the states remained separate... I'd love to see Rhode Island or Alabama survive as a soverign entity.

That's why the original system the colonies had didn't work(confederacy). The federal government is important, I'm not denying that. The thing is though, I don't think it has a place in domestic issues - education for instance(we get things like 'No Child Left Behind' from them). The federal government should stick to military, foreign affairs, post-office, printing money, and helping resolve conflicts between states if needed. Keep it to the necessary functions such as those and let the states sort out the rest of it.

But who gets to draw the line of what the federal government and the state governments do. The Constitution is not a clear cut as it sounds on the issue.

[David S]

Why MUST everything be federal?

You know, a lot of Democratic governors and state legislatures are demanding a tax increase that they could implement themselves.

What is it that Republicans want to do that would actually hurt your state in any way?

Personally I have no problem with more power being allocated to the state governments, as long as the Federal Government remains paramount. We must remember that we are Americans first Califonian/Ohioans/Hawaiians second.

That's not how they felt back when the country was founded.

Times have changed. America would not be where it is today if not for the federal system asserting itself. Imagine if the states remained separate... I'd love to see Rhode Island or Alabama survive as a soverign entity.

That's why the original system the colonies had didn't work(confederacy). The federal government is important, I'm not denying that. The thing is though, I don't think it has a place in domestic issues - education for instance(we get things like 'No Child Left Behind' from them). The federal government should stick to military, foreign affairs, post-office, printing money, and helping resolve conflicts between states if needed. Keep it to the necessary functions such as those and let the states sort out the rest of it.

But who gets to draw the line of what the federal government and the state governments do. The Constitution is not a clear cut as it sounds on the issue.

Actually the constitution is quite clear about what powers the federal government has. Its in Article 1 Section 8.  Further the 10th amendment states very clearly that the federal govt has only the powers given to it by the constitution. Everything else belongs to the states or the people.

[The Duke]

Florida's high court ruled. Unfortunately for them, it's the Florida legislature's right to appoint electors.

So in other words, you support the right of state judges to make BS decisions, but not the rights of state legislatures.

Marriage amendment strikes down judicial activism. And has to be ratified by the STATES, and you could get all 50 to do it.

The right of states to determine how their electors are chosen was defeated in 2000 when the US Supreme Court overturned that FL Supreme Court.  State's rights is an illusion.

I agree, not everything should be federal.  But some things (National Defense for example) should be.  And for those things the entire nation should foot the bill.

1. Under the US Constitution, Article 2 "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...".  This means that it was not the authority of the Florida court to appoint electors, which is what they had tried to do.

2. Because of the outcome of the case Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, the Federal Supreme Court has apellate jurisdiction over state courts whose decisions have constitutional ramifications.

3. Florida's rights end where the Constitution begins.  The selective recount by new standards violated both the ex post facto ban in the Constitution and the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.