States Rights.

[BanginJimmy]

The issues in which the states are specifically bucking the federal govt are adding up. A pretty good article about it from yahoo.

Federal nullification efforts mounting in states (http://news.yahoo.com/federal-nullification-efforts-mounting-states-125044420.html)


The fight against the feds is carried out on many fronts. Medical marijuana, gun rights, health care are the biggest, but you have smaller fights taking place every day. Here is GA there is a constant legal battle between Florida, GA, and Bama with the Corps of Engineers concerning water.

[bu villain]

The supremacy clause combined with the 10th amendment definitely make for some contention but I think it is healthy for the states and federal government to debate over these issues. This should be a continuous dialog. I don't think either side should just roll over for the other.

[BanginJimmy]

The supremacy clause combined with the 10th amendment definitely make for some contention but I think it is healthy for the states and federal government to debate over these issues. This should be a continuous dialog. I don't think either side should just roll over for the other.

The supremacy clause is getting its second major challenge since the Bill Of Rights was adopted. The first major challenge resulted in the Civil War. Will this get to that point? I don't think so, not because there isn't need for a drastic change, but because it just won't work for either side.

This version of the civil war will be played out in the courts. I think it will define the US for the next 2 centuries. Will the federal govt become all powerful by the use of writing tricks, or will the states regain the power they have lost little by little.

Sent from my Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 2

[bu villain]

I certainly agree that the courts are the modern battlefield for these issues but I don't think what happens right now will define the next 200 years necessarily. While we may be at a local inflection point right now, I think these spats will be pretty regular going forward. I think of this tug of war as a swinging pendulum. Early in the country's history, the pendulum was far to one side (the states clearly were much stronger). Now the pendulum has swung towards the other direction (the federal side). I think the swings will be smaller and smaller as we settle into an equilibrium. There will continue to be small movements around this equilibrium with the occasional larger move.

One big question could be, have we already reached the peak of federal power or do we still have much more to go. I personally think we are close, though not quite at the peak. The increasing dissatisfaction with the federal government and the increase of libertarianism is my evidence for this.

[BanginJimmy]

I certainly agree that the courts are the modern battlefield for these issues but I don't think what happens right now will define the next 200 years necessarily. While we may be at a local inflection point right now, I think these spats will be pretty regular going forward. I think of this tug of war as a swinging pendulum. Early in the country's history, the pendulum was far to one side (the states clearly were much stronger). Now the pendulum has swung towards the other direction (the federal side). I think the swings will be smaller and smaller as we settle into an equilibrium. There will continue to be small movements around this equilibrium with the occasional larger move.

I can see your point, but I think the way the courts view this can and will have a drastic effect on how much further the feds push for more power.

Most people really have no clue just how young this country is and just how revolutionary our form of govt is. We are still going through growing pains. Very few people in this country have a problem with, or question the motives of our govt. They question the motives of the people in govt and as the last 2 decades of countless scandals and instances of corruption prove, we are right to question those people.


One big question could be, have we already reached the peak of federal power or do we still have much more to go. I personally think we are close, though not quite at the peak. The increasing dissatisfaction with the federal government and the increase of libertarianism is my evidence for this.


I do believe we have hit the tipping point, we just dont really know it yet. I think the implementation of Obamacare will be what pushes the govt back to the right and into the hands of the states. What that law fails to live up to any of the promises made to push it through Congress, the electorate will push back hard to remove this type of power from the feds.

[bu villain]

Very few people in this country have a problem with, or question the motives of our govt. They question the motives of the people in govt and as the last 2 decades of countless scandals and instances of corruption prove, we are right to question those people.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. What is the difference between the motives of the government and the motives of the people in the government? Are you saying the government exhibits some emergent behavior beyond the sum of it's parts?


I think the implementation of Obamacare will be what pushes the govt back to the right and into the hands of the states. What that law fails to live up to any of the promises made to push it through Congress, the electorate will push back hard to remove this type of power from the feds.

Possibly but I don't think Obamacare has to live up to all its promises to avoid the fate you describe. I think it simply has to not be much worse than our current system that so many people are so dissatisfied with.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. What is the difference between the motives of the government and the motives of the people in the government? Are you saying the government exhibits some emergent behavior beyond the sum of it's parts?

You said it correctly. It isnt any individual law or regulation that people so distrust. It is the actual people that are carrying out these laws and regulations that people distrust. Take the IRS scandal. It isnt the added scrutiny that has people so up in arms. Its the politically motivated aspect of it. The AP and Rosen issues? Not the laws that address the press and monitoring them, but the oversized manner in which they were implemented. In both cases, it is the actual people that took common sense laws and regulations and morphed them into something you average person doesnt agree with.




Possibly but I don't think Obamacare has to live up to all its promises to avoid the fate you describe. I think it simply has to not be much worse than our current system that so many people are so dissatisfied with.

I think if Obamacare manages to be a ineffectual on most issues and manages to improve conditions in other areas, it will simply become part of the American landscape. If it becomes a net negative for health care, the economy, or both, you will see the country split even further on the issue.