The majority of constitutional powers and rights should be allocated to the States for several reasons. Rights should be specific and characteristic to each state or region; It wouldn’t be logical to have a biased governmental jurisdiction that imposes laws in the best interest of themselves rather than the nation as a whole. For example, a central government located near a port city would be more likely to impose laws to promote trade and exports, regardless of the negative effects which could potentially harm agriculture-based cities away from the coast. All in all, a central government would be naive to the welfare of the nation as a whole, but instead be focused more on the best interest of neighboring regions which would seem more important.

In the question of who should have the authority: the federal government should justifiably have more power than each individual state government. Without a strong central power, unification between the states would begin to degrade. Today, the national government has more power than the state government; consequently, there are rarely conflicts among the states, with a couple notable exceptions.
In defense, the Articles of Confederation left too much power up to the individual states. Congress had no ability to regulate commerce or enhance trade. Without that overarching power, currency “wasn’t worth a Continental.” Hamilton, a federalist, had to bail out (don’t think in modern terms) the United States by assuming the national debt of each individual state. Without this, the nation would have probably divided into poor and rich states. This class system would have caused more contention and division. Even with the assumed national debt, poor back country farmers revolted during the Whiskey Rebellion and tarred and feather tax collectors. It’s easy to imagine what the farmers would have done to debt collectors.
The federal government should primarily serve as a diplomatic agency for the protection of its citizens.With the power to protect and aid, it would arguably have more power than the states. The term “regulating commerce” is tricky since the nation was founded on justifiable capitalist principles. The better term is that the federal government should “enhance” or “encourage” competition within the United States instead of regulate it. In addition, the national government should control the nation’s military. Individual militias within the states would spark contention. Sun Tzu stated that if a group has an army, they are going to use it.
However, the states themselves should have the ability to make domestic decisions. Some questions might be: How are we going to fund education? Is gay marriage legal? Is abortion legal? Each of those issues should be left to be dealt with by the states. Education should not be supported by the national government since there are strong socioeconomic differences among the states. How can the standardized scores of one school in one area be compared to the scores in another area when the quality of the students is very different? This is an issue that should be dealt with by the citizens of each state. With the states able to regulate their own issues, American citizens will have a greater ability to make their choice of where they choose to live. Since states will have different make-ups and cultures, citizens will have the freedom to live in the area that suits them best. After all, America is based on freedom.

weiiiird that Jordan wrote a novel :P.

Anyway, previously stated, a strong central government needs to have power over individual states. It doesn’t make sense to have a federal government that cannot control it’s country. States need standards, this regulates many questionable laws/ ways of life and unifies the states — which creates a nation.

However, the type of government set up really doesn’t matter if it’s leader/ figure head is tyrannical,crude, or just utterly stupid.

Federal authority and state’s rights should have equal balance. The need for a strong central government is inevitable because without a source of central power, the states wouldn’t be unified. If the state’s all had their own separate government, certain decisions would go head to head and therefore let the nation fall apart. Also, without a federal government, defense against other countries wouldn’t exist.Although federal government is more beneficial, states should have their say in issues at hand. Without state government having their say in debates that occur, how else would we know what the problems are? Both federal and state authority should have equal balance.

Without a federal government that maintains more authority than the states, the Unites States would be non-existent. There would be no ‘union’ to bind the states together for a common cause. If the states had governments which were more powerful than the federal government, the states would act out of self-interest. However, the federal government cannot completely overpower the states because no state would want to be involved in such an authoritative government. Therefore, the national government is limited to control and govern the matters which all states absolutely have in common and to which all states are united (military, health care system, postal service, etc.). The states must be able to maintain to less important matters which vary from state to state (education funding, construction funding, gay marriage, etc). For the sake of argument, consider the United States in a position where the states have more authority than the national government. No matter what the time period, that system would replicate the situation created by the Articles of Confederation. The states were not bound to the central government and they determined that they would not benefit from strong ties with it. Therefore, the federal government was powerless over states that were uninterested in the common cause.

A federal government is absolutely necessary to have to unite all of the states as one country. However I believe the balance of power for state and federal government should be split fairly equally. Most domestic issues should be handled by the states whereas foreign affairs and the security of the country should obviously be handled by the federal government. As stated in the constitution, all power not specifically given to the federal government should be left to the states. Likewise, the federal government must still have power over the states or what would be the point of having one at all? Certain issues, especially regarding foreign affairs, have to be handled by the country as a whole, and there has to be a way to carry out that process which is where the federal government would come into play. The roles of the state and federal governments should stay separate for the most part while they are both important to the success of the country as a whole.

As to which area should have more authority, the federal government or the state government, I believe that the federal government ultimately should hold more power over the states so that the nation continutes to keep its unity. The federal government should hold more power than the states for the purpose of equality; some rules and regulations should apply to all citizens of the United States, not just certain citizens in specific states. Another reason that the federal government should hold supreme powers is for the consistency of foreign affairs; individual states should not separately deal with such situations that can potentially harm the whole country. States, on the other hand, should hold powers that aren’t so serious, such as traffic laws and regulations, and for more specific laws that sufficiently appease the opinions of the people in that area. In conclusion, the federal government should hold the overall general power in the country in order to keep the states together as a country, whereas the states should more so specifically please the people.

The state and federal government should be treated equally. Without the federal government the states wouldn’t be able to unite and act as one country. There are several decisions we need to make as a whole, not as independent states-including agreements with other countries. Although the federal government is a necessity, it is also important for states to be able to make smaller decisions on the own. They should be able to make their own laws about education, marriage, taxes, and other things of this nature. These are just a few reasons for why the federal and state governments should be treated evenly.

If the country wants a more controlled, stuctured, and stern society than the way of a strong government is the way to go. Without a central government things would be chaotic leading to the uprising of new and crazy laws followed by the development of some states that are overpowered. The central goverment may be overpowered in a way but it is for the right cause. It is necessary to have this controlling factor in one’s society to decide on the tasks/issues unbiased and to chose the correct decisions for the country. without the goverment as a controlling factor the states would only focus on self growth and success. Plus, the government (even if not accepted by all people) is good in the way that it separates people who dont need to be making decisions with people who do. Also, the government provides a strong core for the country it leads and proves to be the very base of the structured society.

In order to obtain a stable society, the federal government should hold the majority of the power but the states should have the authority to make some decisions in their own state legislatures. There should be specific guidelines set my the national government, otherwise there would be state governments that are on extreme opposite sides of the political spectrum. The people should have some power in decisions made for the country, but a large group of people will never come to a common agreement. The proper balance would be one in which the states were allowed to make their own laws, according to guidelines set by the government, and a federal government with state representatives serving in place of the people, but also a federal government with the authority to override any state law that could be harmful to the people.

The relationship between the federal government and the states can be compared to a mother bird and its eggs. The mother laid the eggs and gave them life, and it will watch over them until they hatch, but once the birds learn how to fly, they’re on their own.

After the Revolution (following a short interlude), the Articles of Confederation were drafted to establish a national government. They were aborted after 9 years because the majority (not all) of the leaders in the Continental Congress believed they did not relegate enough powers to the federal government, namely control of commerce and tax collection. Since no one was regulating shipping and interstate trade, states sometimes had conflicts over sailing routes and border disputes. These are problems to be expected from bordering nations, not from states of the same nation. Tax collection also needed to be regulated by the federal government, otherwise some states’ citizens would be taxed unfairly.

These issues highlight why states should not have more power than the federal government. Rather, the states should have different powers. The federal government should oversee operations of the state to make sure no conduct is unconstitutional. Also, the federal government should take part in diplomatic affairs for the whole nation, keeping in mind the best interests of all the states collectively. However, issues that are more provincial and ideological should be left to the state. Education, gun control, abortion, capital punishment, drug regulation, drinking age, gay marriage, and many other issues that are not essential to the unity of the whole nation are examples of decisions that should be made by the state governments. Most of the decisions on these issues that become national do so because the Supreme Court decided on one side or the other. These rulings should not be a precedent for every other state court, because the issue originated in one state and should thus be resolved in only that state. The federal government should serve as a guard for all the states, but the states need to learn how to fly on their own.

The State’s authority should supersede that of the federal government in almost every aspect of governing. The primary purpose of the federal government should be to unite the States in diplomacy, foreign affairs, and security. It should probably also serve to enforce laws, though I’m not quite so adamant on this point. Because the purpose of the federal government in this instance would be solely to protect Americans and their property, the funds for the government would come from a flat tax on property and real-estate that didn’t try to gouge the rich. In this way, everyone would pay their share based on how much stuff they have that’s being defended. The federal government is ideal for this purpose because it unites a large group into a strong coalition of states with a common interest in defense.
Great insight into different systems of government by examining the works of Thomas Sowell, who writes that there are basically two diametrical philosophies to government, and everything falls somewhere between them . These two different systems are the constrained and unconstrained views.
In an unconstrained understanding of humans and government, people can always “improve” toward the goals of society in order to progress toward prosperity for all. This unconstrained vision was the leading view in the French Revolution. It also coincides with the philosophers such as Rousseau who think that humans by nature are good, but become corrupted by society. In this system, people who harbor selfish interests must be subdued by those with more altruistic visions. To do this, it becomes necessary to have an elite group of politicians who are well-educated enough to analyze the implications of all regulation enforced and laws passed. A central tenet of the unconstrained vision is the belief that these planners can exist, and that they can defend the best interests of a population.
On the other hand, the constrained version preaches that society is imperfect and men will act only in their own self-interest, so it becomes necessary to control them in order to have a functioning society. This is the view that the philosopher Hobbes expresses in his work. In contrast to the great organizers of the unconstrained vision, the constrained model holds as a central truth that no one can effectively govern large groups because: people seek personal gain, and; no one can possess sufficient knowledge to dictate effectively how large, complex systems of people should interact. In this constrained view, the significant knowledge is not taught knowledge; instead it is experience. Supporters of the constrained view declare that the collective knowledge of everyone’s experience is superior to the ideas of any single leader in running systems, and no one person can have sufficient experience to control more than a miniscule piece of the great system that is a country. This preference of experience is frequently associated with Adam Smith.
So now, it must be considered which is a more desirable way to approach the world. I prefer the constrained view, because letting everyone protect their own interests is far better than trying to change the way everyone acts. Self-preference is a necessity of any species that has ever existed for more than a single generation, so it seems silly to try to beat it out of humans. Not only does it seem like a hopeless and impossibly large task, it would be detrimental to the entire species. Just because we understand evolution doesn’t mean that we’re exempt from it.

The other important belief influencing how I believe government should be structured is that I don’t think any entitlement exists. No one has the right to demand anything which they did not produce from anyone unless they can obtain it through a deal that is favorable to all parties. Anything short of a mutually agreeable transaction is either fraud or extortion, and extortion is just a watered down form of slavery.
So, back to applications in government. The State must be the more powerful ruling entity because it allows organization at a much lower level. Because no one can effectively gauge all the wants and needs of everyone in a large system, the most logical course of action is to divide the country into separate jurisdictions that can address their own interests. Health care is an excellent example of something that cannot be made to satisfy 300 million people. The generally more healthy people of some States ( Colorado comes to mind) cannot be made to subsidize the medical needs of unhealthy States such as Mississippi. In the health care debate, politicians like to throw around a figure saying that there are about 46 million uninsured Americans. This is then paraded as some great tragedy. The question is, to whom is it so horrible? They either choose to be uninsured, or they cannot afford it. In the second case, they should work to progress to a point where they can afford it, or they should accept their position, but they absolutely cannot demand that their fellow citizens become their slaves in order that they may have health care. If a particular community finds it advantageous to have communal health care, they can do so, but when there is such clear opposition to a matter, it should not enacted in the entire country. Unfortunately, the politics of this country made it advantageous to Congress to do so anyway. The solution is to severely limit what Congress, and the rest of the federal government, may do.
Now I’ll consider the revolutionary era. The Constitution should have been written so that Congress could not interfere with commerce in any way. It also should have explicitly stated that any power not expressly granted was forbidden.
The issue of the worthless continental was not a result of decentralization ( it was a national currency), but rather one of the government seizing too much power where it didn’t have sufficient knowledge. The currency was improperly backed by real wealth, so that the Continentals were representing some value that did not exist. This meant that the only possible path was that of inflation until the currency was worth exactly the paper it used. One could argue that any centralized currency is a problem, as it simply represents some value. This causes a dangerous disconnection between the value and the currency itself, and is probably one of the most precarious steps toward peoples’ false sense of entitlement.
The issue of State debt consolidation is one that showed why central government needs to be limited in its power. It was advantageous to those states with debt to pass it on to some other entity, where the costs would be diffused. However, no one other than the debtors themselves should have been repaying the loans. When self-interests clash against a moral crisis such as they do here, the necessary reaction is to have a government that restricts, not facilitates, the taking advantage of people.
I think I’m going on too long, so I’ll just stop there.

There definitely needs to be a balance between the local and federal government that is more substantial than we currently have, but the overarching national government does need to maintain certain powers it has evolved in our two centuries as a nation. National regulations concerning food and commerce need to be maintained by the FDA and the Commerce Department, which cannot be allowed to be subsidized to the states, as each will develop their own sense of what’s “healthy” regarding those areas. However, if a government does continue to grow at an exponential rate where the citizens can no longer hold their policy makers liable, and those same legislatures don’t follow the will of the people, it quickly becomes simply unfeasible to maintain such a structure. It is especially when civil liberties begin to be breached that certain obligations have to begin to be given back to the states.

A government must be run by balance. The elected officials must adhere to the will of the people, the states must work for their local rights, and the citizens must hold their legislatures accountable. If any one of these areas begins to wan, a gross abuse of power will develop, either gradually, or immediatly.

If there were such a case where the individual states had all authority and there was no federal government, the United States would simply not survive. With any disagreement over what should be the rights of a state, the states would persue them in different directions; Each state would be interested in a completely separate goal then the next, resulted in a ununified U.S. This being said, individual states have some say and responsibilities in what their laws and regulations are, and the federal government should not have absolute power. Although the states are faced with their own situations and difficulties, the federal government should be taking on larger, international affairs. Seperate states are too weak to handle such problems on their own. What I mean is, the federal government should have authority over states’ rights, with also allowing states to handle (or maybe at most have a large say in) personal affairs. 🙂

Hey Selena,

Thanks for your comments.

I think most would agree that a strong central government was/is vital to the national defense.

At the same time, Hamilton’s plan appeared to have triggered some long term consequences. In your mind, are there any areas where it would be better for states to retain control?