Many Americans seem confused when ask which entity should carry more of the burden when governing “we the people”: The State or The Federal government? Okay Civic students what’s your thought on this matter?
Search
Many Americans seem confused when ask which entity should carry more of the burden when governing “we the people”: The State or The Federal government? Okay Civic students what’s your thought on this matter?
Let me put my two cents in. Primarily States rights start where Federal Rights stop. In other words the States cannot override the US Constitution. With this being understood States can institute laws that avoid violating Constitutional Rights. That's a very fine tightrope to walk across. A good example is Abortion. In recent times some States have passed laws which makes it very difficult for abortion clinics to operate, whereas other States create laws which allows abortion clinics to operate without many restrictions.
Hmm. Federally its the constitution. We are a Untied republic and the constitution should run supreme. It is why I have never been sure why some of these states get to go after the 2nd ammendment the way they do and start prohibiting aspects. Federal govt should also act as the parent when states or territories ignore it. Having said all that, out of the scope of the constitution states have a right to self govern( abortion marijuana etc) and they have the right to secede if they do not want to be part of the republic ( to my understanding). I believe like people, states get too dependent on the Feds. The water gets muddied a lot. Example Katrina. The feds cannot come unless the governor asks/invites. Bush took the heat for that and shouldn't have. She said no thank you. Added to that there is a law that says a state should be able to substain itself for 72 hours without aid from the feds. I feel like the states should be carrying the burden. They are the ones supposedly listening and then speaking for us in Washington. Waters definitely get muddied and you are right its a tightrope.
Very well stated. The waters do get rather murky. The situation in the inner cities are just one example of poorly run states that now want federal taxes dollars to bail them out. And guess what during an election cycle they will get what they want. The House will introduce a huge bail out like the automotive industry and housing market received. What do we get in return, more corrupt politicians. Ugh!! Hope others respond.
I shared this on social media. I hope some of the so called Gun Control nuts come on here. I am going to eat their breakfast, lunch and dinner.
I think our forefathers were brilliant but I really think they missed a boat with not implementing term limits. At that time Senators were appointed and I feel that they placed too much trust in American voters. I think they thought that would limit terms. It certainly should. In 1947 when term limits for presidents came about and by then Senators were elected it should have become an ammendment that all had term limits not just the office if the presidency.
Remember to, they were Statesmen and had no desire to stay for years. They had lives back home. Plus the trips were more dangerous. Disease and Indians to contend with as well.
All true and why I feel very strongly with the ammendment of the President it should have included the senators and reps.
I agree. Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to amend the Constitution. As it should be. The best term limit we can get is vote their sorry arses out.