It's ironic? The Democrat/Dixiecrats used to be the champions of state's rights

1. 69

   Perspycaciousposted 7 years ago

   It's ironic? The Democrat/Dixiecrats used to be the champions of state's rights the Repubs are now!
   
   AT a senior center today the Pledge of Allegiance was said which includes "and to the republic for which it stands."  Power closer to the people and the businesses that pay the taxes has been a Republican goal for several lifetimes.  Well-run states and localities can provide for care that a final American Healthcare Act may not, while other less-well-run states would find that difficult, if not impossible right away.  Who won't be covered will ultimately depend on what each state and locality does, and those figures won't be in until they try. States' rights and care live again in our system!
   
   

   replyreport
2. 74

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 7 years ago

   Sir, I feel as though you should take this down from the questions, as you didn't really ask a question. This is something which, in my humble opinion, and I'm a nobody around here, should instead be in the forums.
   
   The interactions and commentary you should get from this will be, or should be, much greater and more in tune with what you seem to be after. Just look over the forums by topic, and find the one which suits best. I'd tell you exactly which forum, but I forget, there are many here, and I almost never start a forum thread myself.
   
   Anyway, I don't really like the republican party, but what I absolutely hate is the democratic party. I do very much prefer a strong state government to an over-reaching federal one.

   replyreport
   1. 48

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Us westerners are not and will never be bound by federalism. We are sovereign states. We owe our allegiance to the man or woman standing next to us and not to a soggy bottom mill of hypocrites. That is what a republic means.

      replyreport
   2. 69

      Perspycaciousposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Good suggestion, but I wanted my "?" to make this a question folks could respond to with their answers, as you did.

      replyreport
3. 63

   Johnny James Aposted 7 years ago

   The United States tried to have a more state-focused government and it was a complete disaster. Under the Articles of Confederation, the Federal Government had very little power, required unanimous votes on pretty much everything, and relied on the states to tax their citizenry and help pay for the federal government. What ensued, well many states did not pay their share.  On top of that states and its citizens were so bad at paying debts that they had to foreign entities that our credit status was non-existent. In fact, one of the reasons why the states decided to have a more unified federal government, was because the Federal government was going to take over certain debts of the states. This would prove problematic for years, as the legality of whether the Federal government had the right to tax its citizenry went on for years until finally an amendment was made in 1913. Another important note, the founding fathers (once the Constitution was ratified in 1789) purposely punted on the issue of whether the federal courts should have the right to enforce the states and its citizens to live up to their contractual obligations and pay their debts to foreign entities. In the end, the compromise was that the federal courts would hear cases concerning foreign debts if it met certain monetary restrictions, which were such a joke as they knew 99% of cases would never come under this. Yes, some states are better run and can provide for its citizenry via tax roles, however, most of the South and mid-west would be in dire straights. On a per capita basis, the South and Midwest get more aid than anyone else, while states like CA, NY, MA, CT pay more into taxes due to their higher income. If we were to move more programs and certain responsibilities to the states, you would see a massive migration of the population to northern states and California with recipients seeking aid. The argument of the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist stance as it pertains to state and federal rights will go on for a long time.  However, centralized governments work best as it lets people know at a "minimum" where they stand and allows for a more dispersed population and diversified economy.

   replyreport
   1. 48

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      A rather ignoranmt view of life. Let me think here, my great great grandpappy held your view. And he and that group are long long dead. The West shall remain a free society and NY and DC will do their best to make it not true.

      replyreport
   2. 63

      Johnny James Aposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Eric. You know you could just make a cogent argument in opposition to my point, rather than calling someone ignorant. In addition, someone pointing out facts is not ignorant. You can support some state rights, and strong central governing.

      replyreport
   3. 69

      Perspycaciousposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The wonderful thing about your proposal is that wealthy states wouldn't have to keep propping up underperforming ones. My state pays way more in than we get out; it'll be nice to keep that money here and help my fellow residents of this Commonwealth.

      replyreport
4. 50

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   
   
   Demas, both parties have been responsible for the big federal government. And the Supremacy Clause beats the 10th am which is more like a residuary clause in a will. That is why as the Interstate Commerce Clause was misinterpreted by the SCOTUS for the last 75 years, everything became a federal case.
   
   The states now tithe to Uncle Sam, and then have to beg their Uncle to get back some money they need to use for their state.
   
   The point is that there is no end to the Federal Government usurping every state rights as the federal government gets larger and larger.
   
   Of course there are some issues that need to be distributed uniformly across the country, and honored by each state.
   
   The way that health insurance worked, or was controlled by insurance companies was with the Usual Reasonable, and Customary charges in small areas. Smaller than States, than Counties, about the size of a zip code.
   
   When you go to your doctor, and are charged X, but URC are X-Y then the insurance company regardless of your co-pay will only pay X. Either your doctor accepts X-Y, or you pay the difference.
   
   This is neither national or state in its application.
   This system disregards the capability of your doctor, and bunches it into the average in the area. Maybe this worked in the rural areas, or in times past, but today we need to search for the best medical help where ever it exists.
   
   There are many uniform codes in the country, but there isn't a uniform health insurance, medical care, and prescription code.
   
   When the country was founded, the central government existed for only a few things. To represent the US internationally. To fix the differences, or conflicts of laws between the states. To insure that Interstate Commerce was not burdened while passing through a state. Apportionment was the key reason for the ICC. Yet, apportionment was eliminated by the 16th amendment. The federal government already had the power to tax from the constitution, but the 16th allowed the feds to tax equally across the country. While an amendment is per se constitutional, its application can be unconstitutional. Yet, for the past 100 years, the SCOTUS has rejected any and all lawsuits claiming any cause of action that would make it unconstitutional.
   
   Without the 16th amend and the misinterpretation of SCOTUS on the ICC the federal government couldn't have bloated to its current level of obesity, and impotence.
   
   The power of the US govt is a zero sum, states < while US >

   replyreport