Eric wrote:I think the federal government is allowed to dictate certain things to the states via the supremacy clause. However, I agree that the federal government should do what the Constitution says it should. The thing here is that the 10th amendment clearly states that the powers not granted to the federal government are supposed to be monitored at the state level. This is definitely not happening
I think the whole deal with state's rights is partially affected by how our mindset has evolved as Americans. As it became easier to communicate and stay connected with people on the other side of the country, I think we all started thinking in a national mindset instead of a state mindset. Civil rights was the nail in the coffin for state's rights. I'm by NO MEANS making excuses for segregation and I think the Civil Rights Act was necessary, just to clarify. My only point is that Americans felt the need to make every law from the national level instead of the local level. We need an amendment protecting marriage! We need to have the Supreme Court dictate that abortions are legal everywhere! We need to set up national social insurance programs! We need national academic standards! And so on and so forth.
I believe that is correct. We have attempted to do everything under a national umbrella for about 70 years. I think it would all work so much better if you unloaded the federal level and let the states control virtually anything that looks to get anything less tan 66% support of a particular approach at the national level. States will address the issue, review the independent fixes in 20 years and then adopt a national program/law/whatever that is swayed in the direction of those that have demonstrated prudence. Not a total adoption but something that structures a skeleton nationally. This, perceivably, would keep the states "United" and moreover stop much political grandstanding and spinning of the wheels for decades. Further, oversight and measurable results and parameters would reside much closer to home!
The worst Engineers I see are those that beat the dead horse...continuing to try and tweak a system or component into an acceptable form after they had conceived it to be the best solution. "One more time around the mountain!" And the second worst Engineers, design things thinking of many hows and whats...never stopping to think if it is needed or justified at all! Each of these are standard practice in government! If a Scientist, Engineer, Accountant, or Doctor did this as a constant practice...he would be out of the practice with a quickness. But we have lawyers on the Hill...lawyers are good at running their upper holes and acting like the lower ones and make a living out of circle talk, often the better ones make a living out of discounting proof, science, and even common sense. Now the day they earn the title of Representative, or Governor, or so on...is this practice supposed to magically stop. I've watched mankind a good while, it isn't true that men don't change. Opinions and other things sometimes change with people...but the broad stroke of how they do things is very much a rarity!
