BF2S Forums Power to the states!

LividBovine wrote:

Should the federal government actually transfer power to the states, or should we keep the status-quo?

For social policy, yes.  For economic policy, no.

LividBovine wrote:

If we decide that the federal government should relinquish power, how do we go about it?

Appointing Supreme Court Justices that favor constitutionalism (and not just the right-wing brand of it) and limiting most federal political discussions to economic and foreign policy.

LividBovine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

For social policy, yes.  For economic policy, no.

Why not for economic policy?

Interstate commerce and international trade concerns.

LividBovine wrote:

Turqouise wrote:

Appointing Supreme Court Justices that favor constitutionalism (and not just the right-wing brand of it) and limiting most federal political discussions to economic and foreign policy.

That may work if they are willing to rule that a lot of the laws congress has written are un-constituitional.

True...  I'm in a weird position, because I'm pro-choice, but I think Roe vs. Wade was a mistake.  I think abortion should've remained a state issue.  But yeah, it's hard to limit federal involvement in social policy because of many contrary precedents.

However, I do realize that Brown vs. the Board of Education had to be done federally.  Ending segregation took federal involvement, but I believe that is mostly an isolated case.

power is not transferred, its taken

Poseidon wrote:

It worked so well the first time.

How so?  They balanced the power to far to the states with the Articles and corrected it with the current constitution.  They did not shift all the power to the federal government though.

There really is no true deliniation as to how much power the federal government is supposed to have.

My main concern with the balance of power being placed with the fed is lack of a safety valve.  If the states control the implementation of social programs they are successful, other states will follow their lead if they so choose.  If they don't so choose, and you as a citizen want to live under those programs, move to that state.  If, as a country we install programs and policies that we do no agree with, we are left with no place to go.  I would have to move to a different country that governs it's citizens in a way more closely matching my ideal. 

Yes, I would move to different state if I disagreed with my current ones policies enough.

ATG wrote:

The feds are after states rights. Nothing good can come from it.

On some things, it would be a bad idea.  On others, it's needed.

For instance, people in Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona using all the water in the Colorado river.

For instance, there is a drought in California...and other places.  If global warming is making it worse, Califorinia-only restrictions aren't enough.

There's also trading embargos, state tarrifs, etc, that could be in place.

I'm always for states rights first, but...