Are you in favor of federal laws or state laws?

Question

Do you believe that laws and penal codes should be federally regulated (all states do the same thing) or should each state have it's own laws and penal codes for crimes?

How about "social issues" (Gay marriage, gun laws, etc)

Answer 1

This is a really hard question to answer.

I don't know. One thing I like about our current system is the checks and balance. If we gave control to the feds then it's possible that we could live to regret the decision.
The states are closer to the people.
At the federal level, the distance becomes wider.

Answer 2

I tend to go along with Mike.

The 9th and 10th Amendments make it really clear to the few people who actually read the Constitution that what isn't specifically a Federal matter belongs to the States. We don't have the authority as a people to give over state jurisdiction to control something to the Federal government, and we don't have the authority as a people to give over federal control over something that neither the state nor the Fed have any business controlling.

"Social issues" are exactly what that means. It's not the Federal government's business to protect or encourage or outlaw gay marriage, gay behavior, firearms, or drugs of any kind.

Each state should have their own penal code, not merely to give us all choices, but because the States are sovereign entities. States CREATED the federal government, not the other way around.

Answer 3

The only federal laws that should exist are those outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on the laws the government has the right to pass. Beyond those, the states should decide.

Issues like gay marriage are non-issues where the Federal Government is concerned. Marriage (straight or gay) is a personal issue and there should be no laws regulating what is a legitimate marriage. There is no constitutional provision for personal issues like this.

Answer 4

definite, yet in addition in concept the federal government became to be one in all constrained jurisdiction i.e. the shape, meaning if it became no longer expressly defined in the shape the federal government had no authority and as a result the potential became left to the states and the Fed’s had no say in reality using such clauses like commerce clause, the tax and spending clause has more advantageous the Federal jurisdiction into factors which in the begging have been unique to the states as an occasion the ingesting age: the federal government did no longer have the authority to situation a federal regulation to mandate in all of the state the ingesting age, this became completely the jurisdiction of the states, so what the federal government did, in case you like moneys for development/ fixing highways etc. then that state would desire to mandate the ingesting age to 21, this became deem felony under the shape , little end around

Answer 5

I'm ALL for state laws trumping federal laws. There are a lot of benefits to having a national government. I can't think of any of those benefits being tarnished by giving more control to the states. It would be like a one language Europe. Awesome possibilities.

Answer 6

national laws. If each state had different laws then it would cause havic. After all thats what helped lead up to the civil war because the northerners made slavery illegal and the south didn't which in turn caused violence and rebellion. So im all for national laws over state laws.

Answer 7

I like the 10th amendment...A LOT...

"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."

Until then, we have California and Texas beating each other up over who can set the moral standards for our entire nation. Ugh...what a pointless & illegal political battle we're stuck in.

Answer 8

State, that way i can choose where I want to live and what laws I want to live under.

Answer 9

federal, one law for the whole nation.

Answer 10

sure, thats what makes us 'united'