When States Ruled the Land and Americans Drafted a New View

Not saying the government would ever let this happen, but I never thought I would hear of so many parts of states wanting to break away either. Wasnt the original constitution set up for the states to pretty much run everything anyway? I know I am sick of it, the blogger may have a good idea, but I wont see it in my lifetime I am afraid. But if I was, not sure I would really complain about it either. I might have more say about things.

As I saw the financial future of my children and grandchildren slowly flash before my eyes, you know, the kind of slow motion experienced right before the inevitable in a car accident. I realized that I was watching, what seemed, like a gaggle of geese all attempting to mark their territory. And like in flight, when one got tired, it dropped back, and another headed to the front to take the lead. With an America made of divisions not seen since the Civil War, the dollar headed to be lost as the worlds reserve currency, the country's infrastructure in dire need of repair, the unemployment rate much higher than reported (that's an old trick used for years), I didn't actually see Republican, Democrat, Conservative, etc. What I saw, was what I always saw. The same old thing, I even checked to see if maybe I was watching an old documentary of years past.

WHAT IF? Other than national defense, all Americans decided to pay what they would in federal taxes to the state they live in? When the new government health care laws go into effect, the states are going to be left holding the bag anyway. So lets let the states decide how they want to best effectively handle it. Roads, education, infrastructure, police, fire, etc. All handled by the state. Indiana is doing it, Texas is doing it. The states that are not, well, ideology plays a part in that, as well as. they just plain dont have to because they dont have to.

This country has endured trying times and great divisions. Even times of brothers fighting against brothers, but we once again will prevail. But it is up to us, creatively, innovate, neighborly, courageously, and above all peacefully. We each choose our path, and that is different for each one of us according to ones belief. I choose the path of the American Dream, leaving this country a little better off for our children and grandchildren than what we had it. For Mark Twain once said "History does not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme." I think this time lets leave the poems to the poets. Ah, WHAT IF?

You can read the entire blog at:
Blog link

The States originally had alot more power before the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation. However it turned out that the federal government had no power to enforce any of it's powers and was for all intents and purposes failing at what it was supposed to be able to do because of that.

It was decided that a new document was needed that strengthened the Federal Government so they hashed out the Constitution. You can research further into why the Articles of Confederation werent' working as there are many reasons and it's really interesting.

But that's a quick one paragraph answer for you. The States today still have the majority of power in how they do things statewide but over our history it has been deemed necessary by poiticians and the people themselves for the federal government to have more control.

This is where all the debate comes in.

Well I rather send my money closer to home instead of all the pork barrel finger pointing back and forth and waste of money.

Well in my opinion State politicians are worse than Federal but that's kinda like comparing dog vomit to cat vomit and picking which one is less gross.

Originally posted by kro32
The States originally had alot more power before the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation. However it turned out that the federal government had no power to enforce any of it's powers and was for all intents and purposes failing at what it was supposed to be able to do because of that.

It was decided that a new document was needed that strengthened the Federal Government so they hashed out the Constitution. You can research further into why the Articles of Confederation werent' working as there are many reasons and it's really interesting.

But that's a quick one paragraph answer for you. The States today still have the majority of power in how they do things statewide but over our history it has been deemed necessary by poiticians and the people themselves for the federal government to have more control.

This is where all the debate comes in.

So then in the beginning of the Constitution the original Bill of Rights did not apply to the states and they had more power. And during the times of the Bill of Rights states had their own constitutions and their own Bill of Rights exceeded those of the governments' so was protected because their constitution and Bill of Rights for their state citizens were of more overriding power than the Federal level.? or am I reading it wrong? The Bill of Rights was under the Constitution not the Articles of Federation right?

Bar to Federal Action

The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.

usconstitution.net

Originally posted by kro32
Well in my opinion State politicians are worse than Federal but that's kinda like comparing dog vomit to cat vomit and picking which one is less gross.

Well thats a valid point, but states like Indiana is turning a surplus without raising taxes. Texas and Florida is creating jobs with no state income taxe, Alaska gives state citizens a yearly check and no income tax. So some states doing it alot better than feds

Originally posted by sdebunker

Originally posted by kro32
The States originally had alot more power before the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation. However it turned out that the federal government had no power to enforce any of it's powers and was for all intents and purposes failing at what it was supposed to be able to do because of that.

It was decided that a new document was needed that strengthened the Federal Government so they hashed out the Constitution. You can research further into why the Articles of Confederation werent' working as there are many reasons and it's really interesting.

But that's a quick one paragraph answer for you. The States today still have the majority of power in how they do things statewide but over our history it has been deemed necessary by poiticians and the people themselves for the federal government to have more control.

This is where all the debate comes in.

So then in the beginning of the Constitution the original Bill of Rights did not apply to the states and they had more power. And during the times of the Bill of Rights states had their own constitutions and their own Bill of Rights exceeded those of the governments' so was protected because their constitution and Bill of Rights for their state citizens were of more overriding power than the Federal level.? or am I reading it wrong? The Bill of Rights was under the Constitution not the Articles of Federation right?

Bar to Federal Action

The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.

usconstitution.net

edit on 18-7-2011 by sdebunker because: typos

Oofta your asking a big question there but i'll try and clear it up for you.

Originally there was no bill of rights, just the Constitution. Hamilton and Jefferson were the two main people involved in the writing of the Constitution and Hamilton was on the side of the Federal government and Jefferson was on the side of the States. That's not entirely accurate but for explanation purposes you can think of it like that.

Once the Constitution was written Jefferson looked at it and thought there were not enough protections for the people and he was afraid of the Federal government assuming too much power. (sound familiar) He then got his people together and put together the Bill of rights as protections FROM the Federal government. These were things the Federal government could not do to the people. Restrictions as it were.

Hamilton and his people thought the Constitution was fine and did not feel the Bill of Rights was needed and this led to a great debate but eventually in order to ensure that he had the votes Hamilton and the Federalists agreed to the Bill of Rights.

And yes they do not directly apply to the States until a discrepancy occurs and the Supreme Court mandates that a State is in violation and must comply. In fact, the second amendment wasn't applied to States until a court case in 2010 which was the very last amendment ever to be forced upon a State.

Before that time you didn't Constitutionally have a right to bear arms if the State said you didn't. Of course everyone knows what the second amendment was for so it's just a legal issue but there ya go.

Yeah sounds familar. So the debate isnt really the state had the most power vs at what point they lost most of it. Gotcha, or at least strong armed into one direction.