Do you agree the powers of the federal government should be very, very limited?

[IHaveRespawned]

Our constitution emphasizes power and individual functionality within each state. The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution states that powers not given to the federal government nor prohibited to the states is given to the STATES.

I believe most public and governmental affairs can be handled at the micro level. The federal government needs to stop overreaching or interfering with the powers of individual states. Notice that with all the federal income taxes we pay, local fire departments and EMS operations are suffering and even shuttering their doors.

I believe the federal government shall ONLY handle the following:

1. Protecting national sovereignty and protecting against foreign invaders (including illegals)

2. Handling interstate conflicts between states

3. Anything that involves interstate matters, commerce, agreements, and criminal matters that cross state lines.

4. Ensuring the US constitution is abided by, but only what is indicated in the constitution and nothing more or less.

I believe everything else can either be handled by the each individual state or through interstate compact agreements if an issue is too big for a smaller state to handle.

Yes

No

See poll

Updates

8 mo

That is why to me, when I hear "federal government shutdown", it does not resonate at much, because I know it effects non-essential personnel that shouldn't likely be here in the first place. If you get laid off by the federal government, bitch to your own state about expanding opportunities from within or forming interstate compacts

[Syntosi]

No, that is stupid.

First of all, there is nothing really objectively different between the federal government and the state government. Saying that you trust one over the other is silly since they have exactly the same issues. As such, when you say that things should "happen at the micro level" what you are actually saying is that you want inefficiency and duplication of government structures. Instead of having one department doing all the work you want 50 pretty much identical departments doing the same job but slower and at 50 times the cost.

Secondly, I believe that any tool can become a weapon. Just because something is dangerous does not mean it is not equally useful in the right hands and if you turn that around it also means that anything you think is safe can become a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. Trying to limit the federal government only makes it less useful as a tool and you sharpen the local government into becoming a deadlier threat against yourself in the process. +-0 You literally accomplish nothing, congratulations.

The problem you are having with the federal government has nothing to do with what it does or the power it wields. It is about your trust in the people that wield that power and your ability to respond if something happens. Dont get side tracked.

[IHaveRespawned]

Although the people in that state can vote for the officials who decide what happens in that STATE. If my state wants to ban abortion, that should be my state's decision. If you don't like it, move to a state that supports more leftist policies. In fact, my state is conservative and pissed we are funding waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government and unable to keep our fire departments afloat. My state is facing issues with ambulance deserts, lack of first responder programs, and while a huge chunk of our tax dollars goes to federal government, we are struggling to keep essential local services afloat. No one wants to pay more taxes on top of predatory federal income taxes.

[Syntosi]

How is this argument any different from saying you should move to another country if you dont like the local laws?

[IHaveRespawned]

Not exactly. Think of each state as a member of a union versus a subdivision of a greater entity. As part of this union, the state must adhere to the US Constitution. Individual rights such as freedom of speech/expression, due process, right to bear arms, etc. must be adhered to. You can travel between the states without passports or checkpoints. But other than what is outlined in the US Constitution, each state has the power and freedom to form whatever laws or operations they want as long as they don't violate the constitution. That is what it is supposed to be since the founding of the US. The federal government is not meant to oversee states, trampling over their own functionality or operations. The federal government is not supposed to dictate the states and tell them what they can and cannot do, other than what is outlined in the constitution. States are supposed to have their own autonomy. The federal government should not be interfacing directly with the citizen/family. What is most ideal is we pay our dues to our state in which we are a resident of, and anything at the federal level is hashed out between the representatives of each state.

[Syntosi]

I know the principle and history of the matter, I am talking about the logic of it though.

Going on about what the federal government is "supposed to do" and whatnot is not an argument for WHY that would be a good or bad thing.

My argument is that your view of this is incoherent and mostly built on feelings rather than reason.

For instance, you argue that "ideally" we should have a two tiered government structure where the federal government is pretty much entirely separated from the local government and the people but dont stop to question why this would be a good idea in the first place. After all, if we take this to the extreme then why stop at only two tiers? We could continue to give authority to smaller and smaller local governance until every city was its own autonomous region or even smaller.

For some reason you dont think the federal government can be trusted with the things that state government can which is just WEEEEIRD. They are fundamentally equally trustworthy.. or untrustworthy depending on your point of view. Making the division does not solve anything and only causes more problems such as undermining democracy and such things.

[Chazmatazz269]

You’re still thinking too large. State governments should be similarly limited where county and local governments should have more authority. Humans are not equipped to live in huge societies. The numbers vary depending on whose theories you’re reading, but various anthropologists and sociologists have suggested that a community of 100-300 people is effective. Everyone can know everyone else. Larger communities force the risk of electing people you don’t know, who also don’t know you, to have direct control over societal issues that directly affect your life and livelihood. It’s flat out stoopid to do that. Somehow our ancestors got bamboozled into allowing it, and now it’s the norm. This was always going to be the result. There’s also no going back. Once they’ve had any amount of wealth and/or power, it’s almost unheard of for people to willingly relinquish either, let alone both.

[Kelley1]

I would greatly restrict the power of the federal government, starting with removing the income tax.

[DrPepper12]

And then what?

[exitseven]

Yes, the government has its fingers in too many pies. Take care of the roads, make sure planes and trains are safe, provide a military, provide safe food and medications and maintain a social security and Medicare system. Leave education, medical issues, religion, and welfare benefits to the individual states.

[abc3643]

This:

"4. Ensuring the US constitution is abided by, but only what is indicated in the constitution and nothing more or less."

How do you enforce this?
Who interprets that the Constitution is being abided by?

[loveslongnails]

"Very, very limited" ? No, there are a LOT of good things the Feds can do.
Should ANY branch of government have UNLIMITED power? No.
That's what the oligarchs and P-2025 and their puppet Trump are trying to do.

[DrPepper12]

Govt should be a activist institution to improve lives, as such your conception is too limited for my taste.

[IHaveRespawned]

You mean by sending our money to other countries, funding ridiculous projects and even funding illegal immigration like the Xiden regime loved to do?

Meanwhile, local fire departments are relying on dated, broken-down equipment, many rural areas STILL lack medical first response programs, volunteer agencies are shuttering their doors, and we are facing a national volunteer firefighter shortage especially during and following the pandemic. EMS is remaining stagnant. Many areas expect to wait 45 minutes, an hour, or even longer for an ambulance crew to arrive. You leftists need to fucking wake up because emergency services are on the brink of collapse. It is not sustainable. And no, this isn't a federal matter. This is mainly a local/state matter. But I cannot blame locals for not wanting to pay more taxes when most of their income taxes are going to the feds who freely spend and waste their hard-earned dollars.

[msc545]

No. Some states routinely try to enact legislation that violates the Constitution.

[Genzet]

Yes they do no good