USA: a Nation or a Federation?

[Accountable]

I often get wrapped up in debates over the role of government with people I generally agree with. The point we generally miss is - which government are we talking about? I believe our Constitution was set up to have powerful state governments and a weak federal government ... a federation. With Lincoln and FDR violating the Constitution and overreaching their positions in order to preserve what they saw as more important than freedom (both points of which would be good debate threads themselves) government power has gradually moved more and more from the states to the federal level. We have a de facto national government now, not federal.

Is this an accurate view?
Is this the way it should be?
Should the USA be a nation or a federation?

 

[SgtSpike]

I'm not really sure how I feel. A federation sounds good, but also sounds divisive. I guess the good part about it is, if someone doesn't like the laws and regulations of one state, they can move to another. So it gives us more options.

 

[skyblue]

its a federation of once independant states

 

[dt3]

The beauty of the Constitution is that it's written in such plain language. You don't need to be a Constitutional law major to understand it. I think it's very obvious that our founding fathers did not want a strong national government. The 10th Amendment covers that perfectly:

"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."



And for the record, I think Lincoln was a terrible President. :eek

 

[Strauss]

Lincoln wasn't so bad but he did try and push the envelope, FDR on the other hand was an abortion of a president. His policies prolonged the depression and liberals hold him is such high regard they can't see it. He set this country on the eventual path to socialism. The real event which caused this country to head towards one government is the 16th Amendment. The ability to direct tax doom us to be under the thumb of a non-response federal government.

I disagree that it was intended to be a federation. It was intended to be a strong central government, however the governmental duties were to be divided with the states.

 

[Strauss]

If you want to read a great book about how FDR screwed the American people during the depression I recommend the following which just came out: New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. by Burton Folsom, Jr.

 

[Accountable]

its a federation of once independant states

Right. On paper. But what about in practice? Do you see us today as a federation?

 

[Accountable]

The beauty of the Constitution is that it's written in such plain language. You don't need to be a Constitutional law major to understand it. I think it's very obvious that our founding fathers did not want a strong national government. The 10th Amendment covers that perfectly:

"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."



And for the record, I think Lincoln was a terrible President. :eek

How many of the powers that congress holds really belongs to the states or the people?

I used to really rag on Lincoln, but reading history shows that this thing built up to a climax and Abe just happened to be in the hot seat when it blew up in his face. But I still strongly disagree with the actions he took, just as I do with Bush.

 

[Accountable]

I disagree that it was intended to be a federation. It was intended to be a strong central government, however the governmental duties were to be divided with the states.

With the lion's share going to the States, right? Also (feeling a big ignorant here) Where'd the money come from before the 16th Amendment?

 

[Ryder]

The USA has a National government, as it should

 

[Strauss]

With the lion's share going to the States, right? Also (feeling a big ignorant here) Where'd the money come from before the 16th Amendment?

Excise taxes, patents, duties and taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

Answering the first question; yes the majority of the duties were to be with the states hence the reason the federal government has always been referred to as a limited government. Does it seem limited to you? I'm telling you it was the passage of the damn 16th Amendment. Once you give a government the unlimited authority to tax its citizens you have handed all power over to the government to bend you over and shove it in.

 

[dt3]

How many of the powers that congress holds really belongs to the states or the people?

I used to really rag on Lincoln, but reading history shows that this thing built up to a climax and Abe just happened to be in the hot seat when it blew up in his face. But I still strongly disagree with the actions he took, just as I do with Bush.

I would say that most of the powers held by the legislative and executive branches today belong at the state level.

And I think there are tons of comparisons between Bush and Lincoln, which is why I giggled when I heard that Obama was getting sworn in on Lincoln's Bible. There's a lot of irony there for anyone who knows anything about our history.

 

[Hans]

I often get wrapped up in debates over the role of government with people I generally agree with. The point we generally miss is - which government are we talking about? I believe our Constitution was set up to have powerful state governments and a weak federal government ... a federation. With Lincoln and FDR violating the Constitution and overreaching their positions in order to preserve what they saw as more important than freedom (both points of which would be good debate threads themselves) government power has gradually moved more and more from the states to the federal level. We have a de facto national government now, not federal.

Is this an accurate view?
Is this the way it should be?
Should the USA be a nation or a federation?

Have you not heard of the Articles of Confederation? Originally, the goal of this nation was to be a loosely tied state-governed body. However, there were so many flaws, that it simply did not work.

I think we ALWAYS have had a powerful national government, because it can collect taxes, command soldiers, declare war, and create treaties/send diplomats. Also, the arguement of intent of what the nation was supposed to be isn't really that important. The country is what it is, and we can look at our lives now to realize it is really a nation governed by a strong central government. Considering we are the most powerful nation in the world, Id say were doing pretty well.

And Lincoln was an awful president.

 

[Accountable]

I must be getting old. The Articles of Confederation didn't even pop into my head this whole time until you reminded me. Of course you're right except for the taxes. Lincoln started it, then the constitution caught up with the 16th amendment.

 

[Minor Axis]

Lincoln wasn't so bad but he did try and push the envelope, FDR on the other hand was an abortion of a president. His policies prolonged the depression and liberals hold him is such high regard they can't see it. He set this country on the eventual path to socialism. The real event which caused this country to head towards one government is the 16th Amendment. The ability to direct tax doom us to be under the thumb of a non-response federal government.

I disagree that it was intended to be a federation. It was intended to be a strong central government, however the governmental duties were to be divided with the states.

So liberals love FDR like conservatives love Reagan, eh. Reagan marks the beginning of the erosion of the modern middle class in this country. I'm absolutely not surprised that philosophically you'd be against the Square Deal, a program that benefited working/middle class citizens after the excesses of corporatism/big business (that continues in full force today).

 

[Strauss]

So liberals love FDR like conservatives love Reagan, eh. Reagan marks the beginning of the erosion of the modern middle class in this country. I'm absolutely not surprised that philosophically you'd be against the Square Deal, a program that benefited working/middle class citizens after the excesses of corporatism/big business (that continues in full force today).

I suggest you go back to your history book, the "Robber Barons" had long be dealt with before FDR disgraced the Office of the President. Reagan start the decline of the middle class? Ha Ha Ha. Yeah and Obama can walk on water. The New Deal did nothing more than prolong the Depression, started us on the path to socialism and the beginnings of the nanny state from womb to tomb.

 

[Accountable]

I suggest you go back to your history book, the "Robber Barons" had long be dealt with before FDR disgraced the Office of the President. Reagan start the decline of the middle class? Ha Ha Ha. Yeah and Obama can walk on water. The New Deal did nothing more than prolong the Depression, started us on the path to socialism and the beginnings of the nanny state from womb to tomb.

Well, not womb. Yer not a human until you're born ... sometimes not even then.

 

[Hans]

I must be getting old. The Articles of Confederation didn't even pop into my head this whole time until you reminded me. Of course you're right except for the taxes. Lincoln started it, then the constitution caught up with the 16th amendment.

?

This federal government has **ALWAYS** been able to take tariffs from people. This IS a form of taxation. The government has reserved this right since the 1700s.

 

[Accountable]

I tried to do a quick research on how the 16th changed Article 1 (3rd clause), but it's too complex to grasp the whole thing on the fly.

This is cool. This thread has really opened my eyes to historic things I'd known but not really put together. I still think Washington has far too much money and has their fingers in far too many pies, but I see it's more likely from a difference of interpretation rather than simple naked power grabs.

Kinda restores my faith ............. a little.

 

[Hans]

Too much money in too many pies? I disagree. All of the thing that GET funding, have people who WANT that funding. The idea of a representative democracy is to have a nation that acts on what the people want. If people WANT something, we pay taxs, we should get what we want.

This does not mean that the allocation of said resources are balanced the way they should be. I think welfare is abused so much its ridiculous.