Do you think that in some cases the Federal Government should intervene more in State Government?

Question

I'm a big supporter of the State.. but here's a story that has me wondering if sometimes the Feds don't need to intervene... I tried writing it out.. twice.. and it never posted my questions (I let both stand for 15 minutes) so I guess you'll have to read it.. so I went and found a link.. does this sound like justice to you?

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207995.htm


another person who received a "slap on the wrist" is uncle Vinney from Viva la Bam.. he got a little touchy feely with some 12 and 13 year old girls.. he faces 6 months probation to a max of 3 years in jail.. what a system we have.

I didn't mean should the feds come rip him out of jail like some western.. I meant shouldn't there be some national standards on some things.. if the federal government were to set such a standard (or cap or whatever) it would still allow states flexibility and help prevent this sort of thing.

Answer 1

The Federal government does intervene in many state issues. But we do have State Rights. So there are some problems in which they do not have the right to intervene.
For instance: The Governor of a state makes the state smoke free. This interferes with minority rights. But the Federal government can not revoke this law. The Governor can sell the rights to a toll road to a foreign country, the Feds can't/won't intervene.
Where children are concerned, I would prefer that there be a national law to protect them. Such as when a pervert abuses a child; Federal law would take over & demand that the person be put away for the rest of their natural life. They don't. The states give them a period in either jail or prison; then they are set free to abuse other children. There is something wrong with this picture.

Answer 2

I think the federal government must provide a national basic standard. For example, instead of naming a minimum wage, they should institute a living wage law where a council made up of city or county governments and the federal government decide a minimum wage which provides a decent standard of living in any given area. That way, rather than saying how much employers have to pay, they are simply saying that a job has to pay enough for a person to live, at the least. They already dictate basic standards in other ways, for example federal funding for schools creates a bare minimum of how much funding each school has (although this number is FAR too low)

Answer 3

How is the Federal Government supposed to help? Although unfortunate, he was sentenced within the guidelines that were in effect when he was convicted. Do you want the Feds to tell Georgia how to write and interpret all its laws. I agree that what he received was unfair, but the fact is it all could have been avoided if he didn't break the law to start with.

Edit - And he still can appeal all the way to the Federal Supreme Court if he would like. Or do you expect the Feds to just rush in and circumvent that process too?

Answer 4

No, precisely the opposite. You need to read the constitution.

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

Where the constitution is silent on federal powers, the federal government should stay out. Period.

Answer 5

What happened to "equal protection under the law" in Georgia? This clearly should be a federal issue.