Where should the powers of the central government end and the states' government begin?

Question

Just wanted to see what everyone thinks, should the federal government or the state government have more power?

Answer 1

Each issue has to be decided on its own merits. Obviously, the states should not be allowed to declare wars on their own, but at the same time do you really want the federal government picking up your garbage? Some things are more efficiently managed on the state or local level while some are better handled at the federal level, and I don't think everything can definitively be placed in one category or another once and for all. There has to be give and take to meet changing circumstances and the changing needs of society. I tend to think that matters of national security and foreign policy issues should be handled by the federal government. Social issues on the other hand, should be the domain of the states, with the exception of inter-state issues like interstate commerce or any conflicts that arise between the states. There are also situations where it can be argued that a strong national interest exists in having federal control over an issue that previously belonged to the states, such as education. If it can be shown that the states have largely failed in their responsibilities on an issue, and that their continued failure would be a significant detriment to the welfare of the nation, the federal government has not only the right but the duty to step in and set things right. Conversely, there should be (but there isn't) a way for the states (collectively, never individually) to step in and set things right when the federal government has failed on an issue. But those are just my thoughts.

Answer 2

The idea of distinguishing between federal powers and state powers should be -- it should have already been -- addressed in the U.S. Constitution. We should be able to simply consult the Constitution in order to learn where federal power stops and states' begin. However, look at what "Tim" just said,

"Some things are more efficiently managed on the state or local level while some are better handled at the federal level, and I don't think everything can definitively be placed in one category or another once and for all. There has to be give and take to meet changing circumstances and the changing needs of society."

I would have thought that the Constitution would constitute the rules, set them into "categor[ies] ... once and for all" and that the only way the relative powers could be changed "to meet changing circumstances and ... needs" would be to amend the Constitution. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in reality. The 14th Amendment imposes rules upon the states but the rules are extremely vague. And the 14th Amendment, intentionally or not, has been an enormous engine of increasing federal power (especially the federal judiciary) and shrunken power for the states.

Perhaps we need another amendment to basically obliterate state governments and let the federal government do everything.

Answer 3

The idea of states' rights has always been a crock. The South said they fought the Civil War over this issue, but they were happy to have a strong federal government when it was enforcing the Fugitive Slave laws. Republicans today say they are for states' rights, but when a state wants to legalize gay marriage or something else they disapprove of, they are only too quick to ask the federal government to step in. It is ONLY when someone doesn't like the policies of the federal government that they start crying about states' rights. Otherwise it always makes more sense to have a uniform national law on almost every issue.

Answer 4

The state governments should have power over just that, the state. And the federal government should take care of things abroad.

Answer 5

The States should have more power when it comes to their states. The federal government should pick up when it has to interface with International issues.

Answer 6

Depends on the jurisdiction. You don't want the states negotiating treaties with other countries or setting up road blocks to crossing state lines, but then again you don't want the feds dealing with murder laws.

Ultimately, the people should have more power than either the feds or the states, but too many are willing to give up their rights to be free for a false sense of security.

Answer 7

As our federal government makes more effort to protect the nation vs. its people, its important that state government officials represent the desire of its people to protect themselves.

State government, while not as interesting or glamorous, needs to be more autonomous in cases of crisis (which we've found out they're really not).

Answer 8

No. In fact, I believe our governments have taken too much power away from the people who put them in office.

Our government was formed of the people, for the people, and by the people. I believe now we're more of big business, for big business, and by big business.

Answer 9

Neither, they are both corrupt and really never help the average guy out.