The fallacy of harping on "state's rights"

[knapplc]

I keep seeing this mantra of "less federal government involvement, more state's rights" permeating conversation lately, but it's a bunch of crap. It doesn't matter if we're talking local, state or federal politics - if people aren't involved, paying attention to and watching the actions of their representatives, no level of government is better than any other.

 

The constant refrain of state-level primacy is just lip-service. Stop buying into talking points and actually pay attention to what government is doing. The federal government is no better and no worse than any particular state.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not one who harps on "states rights" while pounding his fist on the constitution and claiming the federal government is tyrannical.

 

However, I think we are constantly in a struggle to find a balance. Somethings are better handled at the federal level and some are better handled at the local level. In general, I believe the closer to the local level you get and still accomplish the goal the better. The public can have more control and influence on their representatives the more local they are. Just being in Washington even as a visitor you feel insulated from reality.

 

So, things like the EPA I believe need to be at the federal level. If I own a plant in Nebraska that Nebraska allows to pollute the Platte River, that affects other states down stream. It would make no sense to have every state have their own environmental agency with no over site from the federal level.

 

However, I believe the closer you get education to the local level the better. As long as a certain minimal level is being taught, local school boards can govern their schools as they see fit.

It's a balance that we will always struggle with but it's a good struggle we should always pay attention to.

[NUpolo8]

I would say the Feds are doing better than California, but this is not a grand achievement.

[tschu]

I always wonder what people mean. What rights are currently being withheld from states that need to be returned to them?

[TGHusker]

Here is an interesting OP ED on the subject

 

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/conservativepolitics101/a/The-Conservative-Case-For-Returning-Government-Power-To-The-States.htm

 

 

The founding fathers, through the U.S. Constitution, sought to limit the possibility of a strong centralized government and in fact gave the federal government a very limited list of responsibilities. Simplified, the founders thought that the federal government should handle issues that it would be difficult or unreasonable for states to handle such as the maintenance of military and defense operations, negotiating with foreign countries, creating currency, and regulating commerce with foreign countries. Ideally, individual states would then handle all most matters that they reasonably could.

 

Related constitutional amendment proposal to balance the powers between states and fed govt quoted in the above OP ED

 

http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=usconservatives&cdn=newsissues&tm=664&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=9&bts=9&zu=http%3A//enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases%3FContentRecord_id%3D3befecb6-67bc-45c3-8e35-c088fcfa5c75

[knapplc]

...And again with Constitution-thumping, and again with the same answer - it's a living document, intended to reflect the needs of the time, not the needs of the 18th Century projected to modern times.

[carlfense]

The founding fathers, through the U.S. Constitution, sought to limit the possibility of a strong centralized government . . .

They either don't know the history (and the reason for!) the constitutional convention or they're being willfully dishonest.

[Comish]

 

...And again with Constitution-thumping, and again with the same answer - it's a living document, intended to reflect the needs of the time, not the needs of the 18th Century projected to modern times.

 

That is YOUR interpretation and opinion; not shared by all or necessarily fact. Many believe it is not "intended" to reflect the needs of a particular time, thus causing the differing clashes between strict and loose constructionists.

The founders and framers were overwhelmingly worried about future usurpation of states rights as evidenced by the enumerated listings of the 9th and 10th.

[carlfense]

The founders and framers were overwhelmingly worried about future usurpation of states rights as evidenced by the enumerated listings of the 9th and 10th.

Is that why they convened to form a stronger federal government?

[Comish]

 

The founders and framers were overwhelmingly worried about future usurpation of states rights as evidenced by the enumerated listings of the 9th and 10th.

Is that why they convened to form a stronger federal government?

 

False choice Carl.

Almost everyone agrees there are certain functions best served by a Federal system (armies, etc.)

The debate is about when the local authorities are best informed and viable to service differing localities.

Plenty of examples of boated bureaucracies unable to discern nuances between the needs of ........say a land-bound Nebraska with an agrarian background and the needs of a sprawling urban area

[carlfense]

 

 

The founders and framers were overwhelmingly worried about future usurpation of states rights as evidenced by the enumerated listings of the 9th and 10th.

Is that why they convened to form a stronger federal government?

 

False choice Carl.

Almost everyone agrees there are certain functions best served by a Federal system (armies, etc.)

The debate is about when the local authorities are best informed and viable to service differing localities.

Plenty of examples of boated bureaucracies unable to discern nuances between the needs of ........say a land-bound Nebraska with an agrarian background and the needs of a sprawling urban area

 

So you're trying to claim that the founders were overwhelmingly worried about the usurpation of states rights while agreeing that they explicitly convened to reduce state autonomy?

 

And that's a false choice?

[knapplc]

States Rights and the appeal to the Founding Fathers is the conservatives' equivalent of the "race card."

[Comish]

States Rights and the appeal to the Founding Fathers is the conservatives' equivalent of the "race card."

 

That's quite a stretch........even by your standards

 

You ever try constructing a debate point without resorting to the "race card" ?

[knapplc]

 

States Rights and the appeal to the Founding Fathers is the conservatives' equivalent of the "race card."

That's quite a stretch........even by your standards

 

You ever try constructing a debate point without resorting to the "race card" ?

 

If by "stretch" you mean a fallback explanation that is used in thread after thread in this very forum, then yes, we agree. If not... not so much.

 

You're welcome to search for any instance in which I've used the "race card" as a basis for an argument. I'm guessing I'll find more instances of "founding fathers" and "state's rights" on the front page than you could find in this entire forum.

[Comish]

 

 

States Rights and the appeal to the Founding Fathers is the conservatives' equivalent of the "race card."

That's quite a stretch........even by your standards

 

You ever try constructing a debate point without resorting to the "race card" ?

 

If by "stretch" you mean a fallback explanation that is used in thread after thread in this very forum, then yes, we agree. If not... not so much.

 

You're welcome to search for any instance in which I've used the "race card" as a basis for an argument. I'm guessing I'll find more instances of "founding fathers" and "state's rights" on the front page than you could find in this entire forum.

 

How about post number 12 today ?