Federal or State Government?

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

Given the choice, would you rather live in the USA as it is today or in your state under only the rule of your state and city/town/whatever government? This means no federal taxes, no federal courts, no postal service (your state would probably need to build one from scratch), a state army, international relations with the other 49 states, etc. The laws of your state would be enumerated in the state legal code and state constitution.

Generally, posters on DP seem to believe that the federal government holds far too much power and the states should possess more. Would you be willing to live at the other end of that spectrum?

 

[RightinNYC]

I would say my state simply for the reason that no other state/country would bother ****ing with us, so I would get to shirk my responsibility to pay for US defense, etc.

 

[celticlord]

Given the choice, would you rather live in the USA as it is today or in your state under only the rule of your state and city/town/whatever government? This means no federal taxes, no federal courts, no postal service (your state would probably need to build one from scratch), a state army, international relations with the other 49 states, etc. The laws of your state would be enumerated in the state legal code and state constitution.

Generally, posters on DP seem to believe that the federal government holds far too much power and the states should possess more. Would you be willing to live at the other end of that spectrum?

I would like to clarify something. Your question, while interesting, as phrased presents something of a false choice. There is not any inherent conflict between state and federal government--other than occasional overlaps of statute. The Constitution of the United States makes a clear delineation between the federal government and the state government, and arguably erects a wall between the two of greater substance than the oft-mentioned and misunderstood wall of separation between church and state.

I choose "state" in your poll because I would prefer to see more power in the hands of the states. The Texas Constitution is not perfect, but for a state constitution it does ok. The states should have more power and should exercise more power than they do currently.

The false choice lies in the implication from your question that choosing the state means disavowing the federal government. What you are asking is whom will give an endorsement of secession. While I fully endorse the right and power of any state to depart the Union and secede, I am not to a point of displeasure in the federal government that I want to see Texas secede from the Union (although admittedly I am much closer today than I have been in years past).

The true "other end" of the spectrum is nothing more than the original state of affairs under the Constitution, where the federal government exercised a limited set of powers, reserving the rest to either the people or the states. For myself, I very much would like to see us return to that point on the spectrum.

 

[johnjoel]

State hands down. I live in Texas and agree with celtic's post about our state.

I too am not wishing Texas to succeed.

 

[Dav]

I'm willing to bet that if you asked Americans which they identified as first, a resident of their state or a resident of their country, at least 90% of them would answer that they are Americans before anything else. And I am one of that 90%.

That said, I do believe that government gets more efficient as it gets smaller and more localized, so I think the states should hold a lot of power, but I don't think they should be their own countries.

 

[celticlord]

State hands down. I live in Texas and agree with celtic's post about our state.

I too am not wishing Texas to succeed.

Errr...I think you mean secede.

 

[Goobieman]

Generally, posters on DP seem to believe that the federal government holds far too much power and the states should possess more. Would you be willing to live at the other end of that spectrum?

You misunderstand.
Most pro-states-rights people believe that there are jobs (spelled out on the Constitution) that the Federal government should do, things (also spelled out in the Constitution) that that states should not be able to do, and that everything else should be left to the states.

So, your question is a false dichotomy -- there's no reason to have only the choices you provide.

 

[Ikari]

Given the choice, would you rather live in the USA as it is today or in your state under only the rule of your state and city/town/whatever government? This means no federal taxes, no federal courts, no postal service (your state would probably need to build one from scratch), a state army, international relations with the other 49 states, etc. The laws of your state would be enumerated in the state legal code and state constitution.

Generally, posters on DP seem to believe that the federal government holds far too much power and the states should possess more. Would you be willing to live at the other end of that spectrum?

I want a controlled and regulated Democratic Republic. The federal government does have too much power, but that's not to say there's no purpose for it. Many things should be relegated to the smallest level because it's easier to control things at a more local level than at a federal level. But there are some things best done on a federal level because they can aggregate more resources to be able to do some bigger things. I don't think that people who state that the Federal government has too much power would necessarily be looking to actually break America down into many nation-states.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

You misunderstand.
Most pro-states-rights people believe that there are jobs (spelled out on the Constitution) that the Federal government should do, things (also spelled out in the Constitution) that that states should not be able to do, and that everything else should be left to the states.

So, your question is a false dichotomy -- there's no reason to have only the choices you provide.

My reason to have my choices is because if I included the option of "The USA with Constitutional fed+state separation", everyone who voted would choose that. I was wondering whether people liked the laws and infrastructure of their state enough that they'd be willing to live there without the national companionship of the other 49 and DC. I know the beliefs of pro-states-righters quite well, which is why I forced them to make a choice they'd have to think about.

 

[Goobieman]

My reason to have my choices is because if I included the option of "The USA with Constitutional fed+state separation", everyone who voted would choose that. I was wondering whether people liked the laws and infrastructure of their state enough that they'd be willing to live there without the national companionship of the other 49 and DC. I know the beliefs of pro-states-righters quite well, which is why I forced them to make a choice they'd have to think about.

Its pretty clear that your poll choices are not broad enough to accurately reflect the views of those that post here, and so your 'results' will be skewed accordingly. Your false premise and false dictotomy render the results void.

You might as well ask people give to their view on child abuse by asking them to choose between continuing to beat their kids or stop beating their kids.

 

[celticlord]

My reason to have my choices is because if I included the option of "The USA with Constitutional fed+state separation", everyone who voted would choose that. I was wondering whether people liked the laws and infrastructure of their state enough that they'd be willing to live there without the national companionship of the other 49 and DC. I know the beliefs of pro-states-righters quite well, which is why I forced them to make a choice they'd have to think about.

Why would anyone need to think about it?

The laws of Texas as well as the other 49 states are not made in a vacuum. They are not made with total disregard for the Union; indeed, they cannot be, for even before the 14th Amendment there was the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution.

State laws, and state constitutions, have evolved within the environment defined and defended by the United States Constitution. To take any one state's laws and constitution out of that environment would require considerable and rapid evolution of that state's laws from a state within a federal system of government to a sovereign nation, beholden to none but its own people.

States' rights advocates--at least this states' rights advocate--do not seek to abolish the Constitution, merely to restore the original order of the Constitution, delineated most clearly in the 10th Amendment, reserving powers and rights not defined to the people and to the states, not to the federal government.

 

[Tucker Case]

I want my state to have full military authority so that we can take over Wisconsin, steal their cheese and disband the Green Bay Packers.

Outside of that, just cut and paste what goobieman said in his first post on this thread and pretend I said it as well.

 

[WI Crippler]

I want my state to have full military authority so that we can take over Wisconsin, steal their cheese and disband the Green Bay Packers.

Well then, where will you FIBs vacation at?

 

[Tucker Case]

Well then, where will you FIBs vacation at?

We'll own Wisconsin, which is a great place after you get rid of the Cheetards.

 

[WI Crippler]

We'll own Wisconsin, which is a great place after you get rid of the Cheetards.

All things being equal amongst the males, Wisconsin will hold its own on the strength and size of its females, which I would pit against anybody else's in a fight.

 

[OxymoronP]

Federal!!!


I mean NY is great but President Patterson doesnt sound to appealing.

 

[Tucker Case]

All things being equal amongst the males, Wisconsin will hold its own on the strength and size of its females, which I would pit against anybody else's in a fight.

Already factored for that. I figure that the population of Wisconsin is about 5.6 million. Factoring for 33% of that being children, the old, and the infirm, We get 3.7 million able-bodied men and women. 1/2 of those are men. 1/2 are Wisconsin women. 1.87 million of each.

Illinois has a population of about 12.9 million. 33% removed as old, young or retarded brings us to 8.6 million. 1/2 are Illinois women, so they get removed and we have 4.3 million. Subtract the number of Wisconsin men (1.87 million) and we've got 2.43 million men to fight 1.87 million Wisconsin women.

That's about 1.3 Illinois men for every Wisconsin woman.

A Wisconsin female can safely eat 2/3rds of her own body weight a day, or about 230 lbs a day.

We just need to have enough men to exceed this 230 lbs limit. The average man weighs about 190 pounds and with 1.3 per wisconsin woman, we'll average 247 pounds per woman. this means that they'll end up choking to death because they will not stop gorging themselves due to the Wisconsin disorder!

Victory is ours!

 

[Dav]

Already factored for that. I figure that the population of Wisconsin is about 5.6 million. Factoring for 33% of that being children, the old, and the infirm, We get 3.7 million able-bodied men and women. 1/2 of those are men. 1/2 are Wisconsin women. 1.87 million of each.

Illinois has a population of about 12.9 million. 33% removed as old, young or retarded brings us to 8.6 million. 1/2 are Illinois women, so they get removed and we have 4.3 million. Subtract the number of Wisconsin men (1.87 million) and we've got 2.43 million men to fight 1.87 million Wisconsin women.

That's about 1.3 Illinois men for every Wisconsin woman.

A Wisconsin female can safely eat 2/3rds of her own body weight a day, or about 230 lbs a day.

We just need to have enough men to exceed this 230 lbs limit. The average man weighs about 190 pounds and with 1.3 per wisconsin woman, we'll average 247 pounds per woman. this means that they'll end up choking to death because they will not stop gorging themselves due to the Wisconsin disorder!

Victory is ours!

I was talking to a Wisconsinite woman once and accidentally said something that everybody took to mean that I had just called her fat. She took it quite personally. I thought of telling her about this post but then thought better of it :doh

 

[Tucker Case]

I was talking to a Wisconsinite woman once and accidentally said something that everybody took to mean that I had just called her fat. She took it quite personally. I thought of telling her about this post but then thought better of it :doh

When you nickname someone Corpulent Cassie, that's bound to happen.

 

[WI Crippler]

Already factored for that. I figure that the population of Wisconsin is about 5.6 million. Factoring for 33% of that being children, the old, and the infirm, We get 3.7 million able-bodied men and women. 1/2 of those are men. 1/2 are Wisconsin women. 1.87 million of each.

Illinois has a population of about 12.9 million. 33% removed as old, young or retarded brings us to 8.6 million. 1/2 are Illinois women, so they get removed and we have 4.3 million. Subtract the number of Wisconsin men (1.87 million) and we've got 2.43 million men to fight 1.87 million Wisconsin women.

That's about 1.3 Illinois men for every Wisconsin woman.

A Wisconsin female can safely eat 2/3rds of her own body weight a day, or about 230 lbs a day.

We just need to have enough men to exceed this 230 lbs limit. The average man weighs about 190 pounds and with 1.3 per wisconsin woman, we'll average 247 pounds per woman. this means that they'll end up choking to death because they will not stop gorging themselves due to the Wisconsin disorder!

Victory is ours!

Considering a bulk of your population(re:Chicago) isn't allowed to own guns, Wisconsin women save the day based on their expertise in firing a rifle.

Once again, Daly is your worst enemy.

 

[Tucker Case]

Considering a bulk of your population(re:Chicago) isn't allowed to own guns, Wisconsin women save the day based on their expertise in firing a rifle.

Once again, Daly is your worst enemy.

Damn you DALEY!!!!!!!!

 

[johnjoel]

Errr...I think you mean secede.

Thanks I did. No excuses, my bad.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So, my choice is between a federal government with a huge debt and a steadfast refusal to balance the budget by limiting spending, and a state with a huge debt and a steadfast refusal to balance it's budget by limiting spending.

Why would I prefer either?

 

[ronpaulvoter]

Given the choice, would you rather live in the USA as it is today or in your state under only the rule of your state and city/town/whatever government? This means no federal taxes, no federal courts, no postal service (your state would probably need to build one from scratch), a state army, international relations with the other 49 states, etc. The laws of your state would be enumerated in the state legal code and state constitution.

Generally, posters on DP seem to believe that the federal government holds far too much power and the states should possess more. Would you be willing to live at the other end of that spectrum?

America was founded as a collection of independent states (nations). The purpose of the federal government was national defense, although it was allowed to coin legal tender, maintain a few (post) roads, and deliver the mail. THAT'S IT.

Otherwise, people lived solely under their states' rules.

There were only two crimes prosecutable by federal law--counterfeiting and treason.

The multitudes of federal laws we now have are patently unconstitutional.

 

[RightinNYC]

America was founded as a collection of independent states (nations). The purpose of the federal government was national defense, although it was allowed to coin legal tender, maintain a few (post) roads, and deliver the mail. THAT'S IT.

Otherwise, people lived solely under their states' rules.

There were only two crimes prosecutable by federal law--counterfeiting and treason.

The multitudes of federal laws we now have are patently unconstitutional.

Please stop spreading such blatant misinformation.