I think the only path forward is two governments separated by county by county giving the people the

[alang1216]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

 

[martybegan]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

 

[Votto]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

Weak? So you prefer a strong centralized system like Nazi Germany?

Got it.

Of course, President Wilson and FDR both centralized the system to fight the war machines in Europe because strong centralized governments are naturally occruing war machines.

After FDR though, the US seems to have been at war all across the globe nonstop, even though they never declare war anymore.

I reckon you like this. How about the trillions in debt we are in because of it and the fact that the US is on the verge of nuclear war with NK and soon to be Iran?

It's like my daddy always used to say, "Be careful not to become what you are fighting."

As for the dysfunctional nature of Congress, you are correct, their power needs to wane and give it back to the states. A Congress that has had an approval rating of under 20% for decades in a democracy is proof of a failed system.

So do you wish for change or more of the same?

 

[alang1216]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

You're letting your ideology get in the way of our history. The Articles of Confederation didn't last very long as they were too loose for the States to work together. We can't have 50 armies to defend the country. It took a strong Federal gov't to force states to return slaves and not send smoke from coal plants across state lines. The individual states were unable to put people back to work during the Great Depression so the Feds tried. Southern states wanted to keep segregation. Etc.

 

[alang1216]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

Weak? So you prefer a strong centralized system like Nazi Germany?

Got it.

Of course, President Wilson and FDR both centralized the system to fight the war machines in Europe because strong centralized governments are naturally occruing war machines.

After FDR though, the US seems to have been at war all across the globe nonstop, even though they never declare war anymore.

I reckon you like this. How about the trillions in debt we are in because of it and the fact that the US is on the verge of nuclear war with NK and soon to be Iran?

It's like my daddy always used to say, "Be careful not to become what you are fighting."

As for the dysfunctional nature of Congress, you are correct, their power needs to wane and give it back to the states. A Congress that has had an approval rating of under 20% for decades in a democracy is proof of a failed system.

So do you wish for change or more of the same?

You're completely wrong about my support for our endless wars. These wars are the most likely way this country will implode.

As for wishing for change or more of the same, I'll tell you what I don't want, I don't want to revert to a system that failed. Einstein had a saying about that. What I want is to fix the system we have, which I happen to think is a great system.

I think there are things best left to the local gov'ts, some things best left to the states, and some things best left to the Feds. What I don't want is for a bunch of ideologues to take the system apart and then try and rebuild it on a failed model.

 

[Votto]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

You're letting your ideology get in the way of our history. The Articles of Confederation didn't last very long as they were too loose for the States to work together. We can't have 50 armies to defend the country. It took a strong Federal gov't to force states to return slaves and not send smoke from coal plants across state lines. The individual states were unable to put people back to work during the Great Depression so the Feds tried. Southern states wanted to keep segregation. Etc.

My history is great, how about yours?

George Washington summed up the problem with the Articles of Confederation by saying, "No money".

I have no interest in going back to the Articles of Confederation so stop suggesting I do.

The Constitution worked just fine up until the dawn of the Progressive era. It was an era where the Supreme Court had just slapped down an attempt at a federal income tax as Unconstitutional, so they just amended the Constitution to force it upon us. Then they took away the states ability to appoint a Senator to weaken state power and created their own bank with the Fed, and they were well on their way to having too much money instead of "No money".

Now the US federal government throws money at every man, woman, and child on the face of the planet through welfare, health care, international loans, etc. Now if you don't like what the US government does world wide, you may just lose your money from them. Even states are not free to do as they like least they lose their now depended upon federal funding. Now the very Republic is in jeopardy because of the outlandish debt created as a result of this crap. For you see, Progressives like President Wilson despised the US Constitution and the "weakness" you speak of, so the "fixed" it.

The Founders were wary of a strong centralized system, which is why they allowed states to rise up and challenge federal authority under the Constitution. It has never been done but if there ever was a time to do it, it is now.....or do you not like the Constitution as well?

First order of business is to limit Congressional terms. They were never meant to serve for life and have a lavish retirement and live in a bubble instead of creating a world in which they would have to live outside the bubble. There also needs to be spending restraint. Having trillion dollar deficits at a time in history where the US is not at war is unacceptable. In fact, continuing to go to war without declaring war is also not acceptable.


As President Lincoln aptly pointed out, "The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us." Of course, the reason the US government can wage continuous war around the globe is once again directly linked to their power of the purse as they run trillion dollar deficits every year.

Obama violated the War Powers Act by not notifying Congress in a certain length of time when he went to war with Libya. His excuse was, "It's not a war".

To sum up, the problem with the Articles of Confederation was "No money", but the problem with the subversion of the Constitution by the Progressive era is, "No restraint".

 

[martybegan]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

You're letting your ideology get in the way of our history. The Articles of Confederation didn't last very long as they were too loose for the States to work together. We can't have 50 armies to defend the country. It took a strong Federal gov't to force states to return slaves and not send smoke from coal plants across state lines. The individual states were unable to put people back to work during the Great Depression so the Feds tried. Southern states wanted to keep segregation. Etc.

So just let the feds do everything then?

The constitution was designed for a Strong Federal Government only in certain areas, with everything else left to the States. An overbroad interpretation of the 14th amendment has injured that concept, but has not killed it yet.

The feds shouldn't meddle in things handled better by the people locally.

There is nothing wrong with a strong federal government, but it should only be strong in the SPECIFIC areas delegated to it.

So States should be able to figure out if they want pot legal or not as an example.

 

[Votto]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

You're letting your ideology get in the way of our history. The Articles of Confederation didn't last very long as they were too loose for the States to work together. We can't have 50 armies to defend the country. It took a strong Federal gov't to force states to return slaves and not send smoke from coal plants across state lines. The individual states were unable to put people back to work during the Great Depression so the Feds tried. Southern states wanted to keep segregation. Etc.

So just let the feds do everything then?

The constitution was designed for a Strong Federal Government only in certain areas, with everything else left to the States. An overbroad interpretation of the 14th amendment has injured that concept, but has not killed it yet.

The feds shouldn't meddle in things handled better by the people locally.

There is nothing wrong with a strong federal government, but it should only be strong in the SPECIFIC areas delegated to it.

So States should be able to figure out if they want pot legal or not as an example.

Yes, there is something wrong with a strong federal government. Power corrupts, which is what the Founding Fathers attempted to avoid with checks and balances.

And yes, doing that "weakens" the power.

Do you know what the most efficient form of government is? It is a one man tyranny. It is brutally efficient, no decent. Naturally, this is a problem because no one man has all the answers, and men are corruptible.

Ever see Lord of the Rings? Put on that ring and it changes you.

 

[martybegan]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

You're letting your ideology get in the way of our history. The Articles of Confederation didn't last very long as they were too loose for the States to work together. We can't have 50 armies to defend the country. It took a strong Federal gov't to force states to return slaves and not send smoke from coal plants across state lines. The individual states were unable to put people back to work during the Great Depression so the Feds tried. Southern states wanted to keep segregation. Etc.

So just let the feds do everything then?

The constitution was designed for a Strong Federal Government only in certain areas, with everything else left to the States. An overbroad interpretation of the 14th amendment has injured that concept, but has not killed it yet.

The feds shouldn't meddle in things handled better by the people locally.

There is nothing wrong with a strong federal government, but it should only be strong in the SPECIFIC areas delegated to it.

So States should be able to figure out if they want pot legal or not as an example.

Yes, there is something wrong with a strong federal government. Power corrupts, which is what the Founding Fathers attempted to avoid with checks and balances.

And yes, doing that "weakens" the power.

Do you know what the most efficient form of government is? It is a one man tyranny. It is brutally efficient, no decent. Naturally, this is a problem because no one man has all the answers, and men are corruptible.

Ever see Lord of the Rings? Put on that ring and it changes you.

The issue these days isn't the strength of the federal government, it's the reach. It's supposed to be strong, but only in certain specific areas. The spread of its power is far worse than the increase in it's power.

 

[Votto]

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

You're letting your ideology get in the way of our history. The Articles of Confederation didn't last very long as they were too loose for the States to work together. We can't have 50 armies to defend the country. It took a strong Federal gov't to force states to return slaves and not send smoke from coal plants across state lines. The individual states were unable to put people back to work during the Great Depression so the Feds tried. Southern states wanted to keep segregation. Etc.

So just let the feds do everything then?

The constitution was designed for a Strong Federal Government only in certain areas, with everything else left to the States. An overbroad interpretation of the 14th amendment has injured that concept, but has not killed it yet.

The feds shouldn't meddle in things handled better by the people locally.

There is nothing wrong with a strong federal government, but it should only be strong in the SPECIFIC areas delegated to it.

So States should be able to figure out if they want pot legal or not as an example.

Yes, there is something wrong with a strong federal government. Power corrupts, which is what the Founding Fathers attempted to avoid with checks and balances.

And yes, doing that "weakens" the power.

Do you know what the most efficient form of government is? It is a one man tyranny. It is brutally efficient, no decent. Naturally, this is a problem because no one man has all the answers, and men are corruptible.

Ever see Lord of the Rings? Put on that ring and it changes you.

The issue these days isn't the strength of the federal government, it's the reach. It's supposed to be strong, but only in certain specific areas. The spread of its power is far worse than the increase in it's power.

The more power they have the longer the reach.

There is no fixing it within. You may as well tell a heroin addict to "get it together" instead of a forced intervention

No, an outside force needs to intervene. Hopefully it will be the states instead of the system collapsing on itself so that China and Putin can cut up the US amongst themselves.

 

[alang1216]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

You're letting your ideology get in the way of our history. The Articles of Confederation didn't last very long as they were too loose for the States to work together. We can't have 50 armies to defend the country. It took a strong Federal gov't to force states to return slaves and not send smoke from coal plants across state lines. The individual states were unable to put people back to work during the Great Depression so the Feds tried. Southern states wanted to keep segregation. Etc.

My history is great, how about yours?

George Washington summed up the problem with the Articles of Confederation by saying, "No money".

I have no interest in going back to the Articles of Confederation so stop suggesting I do.

The Constitution worked just fine up until the dawn of the Progressive era. It was an era where the Supreme Court had just slapped down an attempt at a federal income tax as Unconstitutional, so they just amended the Constitution to force it upon us. Then they took away the states ability to appoint a Senator to weaken state power and created their own bank with the Fed, and they were well on their way to having too much money instead of "No money".

Now the US federal government throws money at every man, woman, and child on the face of the planet through welfare, health care, international loans, etc. Now if you don't like what the US government does world wide, you may just lose your money from them. Even states are not free to do as they like least they lose their now depended upon federal funding. Now the very Republic is in jeopardy because of the outlandish debt created as a result of this crap. For you see, Progressives like President Wilson despised the US Constitution and the "weakness" you speak of, so the "fixed" it.

The Founders were wary of a strong centralized system, which is why they allowed states to rise up and challenge federal authority under the Constitution. It has never been done but if there ever was a time to do it, it is now.....or do you not like the Constitution as well?

First order of business is to limit Congressional terms. They were never meant to serve for life and have a lavish retirement and live in a bubble instead of creating a world in which they would have to live outside the bubble. There also needs to be spending restraint. Having trillion dollar deficits at a time in history where the US is not at war is unacceptable. In fact, continuing to go to war without declaring war is also not acceptable.


As President Lincoln aptly pointed out, "The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us." Of course, the reason the US government can wage continuous war around the globe is once again directly linked to their power of the purse as they run trillion dollar deficits every year.

Obama violated the War Powers Act by not notifying Congress in a certain length of time when he went to war with Libya. His excuse was, "It's not a war".

To sum up, the problem with the Articles of Confederation was "No money", but the problem with the subversion of the Constitution by the Progressive era is, "No restraint".

So where were the American people when this all happened? Or were they the progressives that wanted a stronger central gov't and the national power it provides?

Term limits are a simple solution to a complex problem and like all such solutions, useless. We need a more robust democracy and that means taking the money out of elections. If we want the people to select the gov't they need to pay for it. There is no free lunch. And corporations are not people. If corporations want something from the people let them go to the people.

 

[alang1216]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

You're letting your ideology get in the way of our history. The Articles of Confederation didn't last very long as they were too loose for the States to work together. We can't have 50 armies to defend the country. It took a strong Federal gov't to force states to return slaves and not send smoke from coal plants across state lines. The individual states were unable to put people back to work during the Great Depression so the Feds tried. Southern states wanted to keep segregation. Etc.

So just let the feds do everything then?

The constitution was designed for a Strong Federal Government only in certain areas, with everything else left to the States. An overbroad interpretation of the 14th amendment has injured that concept, but has not killed it yet.

The feds shouldn't meddle in things handled better by the people locally.

There is nothing wrong with a strong federal government, but it should only be strong in the SPECIFIC areas delegated to it.

So States should be able to figure out if they want pot legal or not as an example.

I don't think the Feds should do everything and generally agree with what you write. However, I think states are just as guilty of overreach as are the Feds, an example being North Carolina passing bathroom laws because Charlotte had a local ordinance they didn't like. Pot should also be a local issue not a state one.

 

[alang1216]

But that is the joy of socialism.

It can only work if everyone on the globe participates, so they will stop at nothing till we all think and do the same things cuz it's an idea so good it's mandantory.

People may want to spread socialism because they are true believers. Why would socialism not work unless all countries were socialist?

 

[martybegan]

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

You're letting your ideology get in the way of our history. The Articles of Confederation didn't last very long as they were too loose for the States to work together. We can't have 50 armies to defend the country. It took a strong Federal gov't to force states to return slaves and not send smoke from coal plants across state lines. The individual states were unable to put people back to work during the Great Depression so the Feds tried. Southern states wanted to keep segregation. Etc.

So just let the feds do everything then?

The constitution was designed for a Strong Federal Government only in certain areas, with everything else left to the States. An overbroad interpretation of the 14th amendment has injured that concept, but has not killed it yet.

The feds shouldn't meddle in things handled better by the people locally.

There is nothing wrong with a strong federal government, but it should only be strong in the SPECIFIC areas delegated to it.

So States should be able to figure out if they want pot legal or not as an example.

Yes, there is something wrong with a strong federal government. Power corrupts, which is what the Founding Fathers attempted to avoid with checks and balances.

And yes, doing that "weakens" the power.

Do you know what the most efficient form of government is? It is a one man tyranny. It is brutally efficient, no decent. Naturally, this is a problem because no one man has all the answers, and men are corruptible.

Ever see Lord of the Rings? Put on that ring and it changes you.

The issue these days isn't the strength of the federal government, it's the reach. It's supposed to be strong, but only in certain specific areas. The spread of its power is far worse than the increase in it's power.

The more power they have the longer the reach.

There is no fixing it within. You may as well tell a heroin addict to "get it together" instead of a forced intervention

No, an outside force needs to intervene. Hopefully it will be the states instead of the system collapsing on itself so that China and Putin can cut up the US amongst themselves.

I think the system is more resilient than that, any change would come from the State level.

But it could be a Blue State Collapse, not a Red State rescue that is the trigger.

 

[martybegan]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

You're letting your ideology get in the way of our history. The Articles of Confederation didn't last very long as they were too loose for the States to work together. We can't have 50 armies to defend the country. It took a strong Federal gov't to force states to return slaves and not send smoke from coal plants across state lines. The individual states were unable to put people back to work during the Great Depression so the Feds tried. Southern states wanted to keep segregation. Etc.

So just let the feds do everything then?

The constitution was designed for a Strong Federal Government only in certain areas, with everything else left to the States. An overbroad interpretation of the 14th amendment has injured that concept, but has not killed it yet.

The feds shouldn't meddle in things handled better by the people locally.

There is nothing wrong with a strong federal government, but it should only be strong in the SPECIFIC areas delegated to it.

So States should be able to figure out if they want pot legal or not as an example.

I don't think the Feds should do everything and generally agree with what you write. However, I think states are just as guilty of overreach as are the Feds, an example being North Carolina passing bathroom laws because Charlotte had a local ordinance they didn't like. Pot should also be a local issue not a state one.

Local lawmaking ability flows from the State down, you are a citizen of your State, not of your locality. Local rule at the sub-state level goes only as far as the State constitutions allow.

 

[Correll]

I think the only path forward is two governments separated by county by county giving the people the choice on how to be governed.

My idea would be county by county as one county could vote to join the pro government society, while other could vote to be under an "government" that's based off of the articles of the confederation if they wish. Lets just say people would have the choice on whether they wanted to be governed by an government based on investment into education, infrastructure, clean air, water and food or whether they not.

I choose counties as states are too large an entity as most of rural America wouldn't accept it as they make up most of the land mass of our nation(probably 85% based on 2016 maps). What I am simply suggesting is two governments. We as an society are far too divided and it is clear that we don't have the same beliefs of government and we just think differently. Why should we be governed by people we hate and disagree with so strongly?

Maybe we could have one head of state and Commander & chief of the nation called the president with two prime ministers? The prime ministers would head the government of each of our "societies" and give the people of those areas what they want. Each society would maintain checks and balances within government, but could live based on the concepts that they believe. We'd probably be friends with the understanding that we're different but of the same country.

Again I don't think the concept of states is going to work as the majority of the land mass of our country is "red" but with low population. So what I am suggesting is letting the "blue" areas have it their way.

YOu have my full support. County by county.


Don't forget to write.


And by don't, I mean do.

 

[alang1216]

Local lawmaking ability flows from the State down, you are a citizen of your State, not of your locality. Local rule at the sub-state level goes only as far as the State constitutions allow.

Seems like a bit of hypocrisy to me. If states are somehow better than the feds then it should follow that the locality is better than the state. Below the locality is me and that is where rights should begin and only be lost as necessary to the next higher level.

 

[martybegan]

Local lawmaking ability flows from the State down, you are a citizen of your State, not of your locality. Local rule at the sub-state level goes only as far as the State constitutions allow.

Seems like a bit of hypocrisy to me. If states are somehow better than the feds then it should follow that the locality is better than the state. Below the locality is me and that is where rights should begin and only be lost as necessary to the next higher level.

It's the way the system was set up.Sovereignty flows UP from the People to the Federal and State governments and DOWN from the State governments to the local divisions of government. All ruled by "home rule" provisions in the State Constitutions.

The Localities, like the States and the Feds are better at SOME things, than the others, not all.

 

[rightwinger]

How about we just go with Shirts and Skins?

 

[Votto]

The US had this system, it's called Federalism.

However, Progs took over and centralized power. Now the President runs the show.

Federalism makes for a very weak country. Think how dysfunctional the congress is. Imagine trying to coordinate 50 individual State congresses. The gov't grew in power in reaction to problems that developed. There was no hostile take over. If we went backwards we'd quickly learn why power no longer is mainly at the State level.

how so? As long as defense and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, why do so many things need to be the same throughout the country?

Local control of things is usually better than having your life dictated by some desk-warming beancounter 1000 miles or more away.

You're letting your ideology get in the way of our history. The Articles of Confederation didn't last very long as they were too loose for the States to work together. We can't have 50 armies to defend the country. It took a strong Federal gov't to force states to return slaves and not send smoke from coal plants across state lines. The individual states were unable to put people back to work during the Great Depression so the Feds tried. Southern states wanted to keep segregation. Etc.

My history is great, how about yours?

George Washington summed up the problem with the Articles of Confederation by saying, "No money".

I have no interest in going back to the Articles of Confederation so stop suggesting I do.

The Constitution worked just fine up until the dawn of the Progressive era. It was an era where the Supreme Court had just slapped down an attempt at a federal income tax as Unconstitutional, so they just amended the Constitution to force it upon us. Then they took away the states ability to appoint a Senator to weaken state power and created their own bank with the Fed, and they were well on their way to having too much money instead of "No money".

Now the US federal government throws money at every man, woman, and child on the face of the planet through welfare, health care, international loans, etc. Now if you don't like what the US government does world wide, you may just lose your money from them. Even states are not free to do as they like least they lose their now depended upon federal funding. Now the very Republic is in jeopardy because of the outlandish debt created as a result of this crap. For you see, Progressives like President Wilson despised the US Constitution and the "weakness" you speak of, so the "fixed" it.

The Founders were wary of a strong centralized system, which is why they allowed states to rise up and challenge federal authority under the Constitution. It has never been done but if there ever was a time to do it, it is now.....or do you not like the Constitution as well?

First order of business is to limit Congressional terms. They were never meant to serve for life and have a lavish retirement and live in a bubble instead of creating a world in which they would have to live outside the bubble. There also needs to be spending restraint. Having trillion dollar deficits at a time in history where the US is not at war is unacceptable. In fact, continuing to go to war without declaring war is also not acceptable.


As President Lincoln aptly pointed out, "The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us." Of course, the reason the US government can wage continuous war around the globe is once again directly linked to their power of the purse as they run trillion dollar deficits every year.

Obama violated the War Powers Act by not notifying Congress in a certain length of time when he went to war with Libya. His excuse was, "It's not a war".

To sum up, the problem with the Articles of Confederation was "No money", but the problem with the subversion of the Constitution by the Progressive era is, "No restraint".

So where were the American people when this all happened? Or were they the progressives that wanted a stronger central gov't and the national power it provides?

Term limits are a simple solution to a complex problem and like all such solutions, useless. We need a more robust democracy and that means taking the money out of elections. If we want the people to select the gov't they need to pay for it. There is no free lunch. And corporations are not people. If corporations want something from the people let them go to the people.

So the answer to fixing Congress is to prevent people from lobbying Congress? Last I checked, those are voters as well and they are people and people do make up corporations believe it or not. I reckon you want all of society to be as powerless over those in Congress as the average man is now. Just think, no up start Trumps to ruin your elitist party in the federal government, wouldn't that be nice?

If you think either party wants to dry up their money source you are insane. The object is merely to attack the other sides money source while leaving their own the way it is.

The issue is not the number of lobbyists in Washington. No, the issue is the centralized power. Just imagine if power returned to the states the way it was. Instead of only focusing on lobbying on a hand full of politicians in Washington DC while ignoring the rest of the country, you would have them have to lobby 50 state worth of politicians in their respective state Congresses. That would significantly water down the top heavy influence of corporations while not silencing their voices. Of course, with the left, it is all about silencing the opposition no matter if it means yelling them down or outlawing their voice altogether.