Hi, everyone! Before I get to the assignment, please note that you submit by commenting below. You need to register on blogger so I know who you are. The assignment is worth up to 4 points, with a good, solid answer being worth 3 points. Better answers address the reading, comment on other students' comments, and offer further evidence (maybe links to other discussion on the topic). You also may want to wait until after Monday's class, which will give you more to work with. Finally, I'm also posting the first set of lecture notes (what you got in class) just after I post the assignment.
As the first few weeks of class have shown, since 1787, power in the US has shifted from the states to the national government. Some think this has been a bad trend (see http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-06-26/federal-mandates-are-almost-always-a-bad-idea), Others think it has been a good trend (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/the-myth-of-states-rights_b_4057947.html) Considering these readings, other reading you do on your own, and what we've done in class, what do you think and why (in about 2 paragraphs),
Blog comments are due by 2 pm on Wednesday, January 28.--NB
Update: Due to my error on syllabus, the deadline is extended to 2 pm, Monday, February 2
I think that the fact that since 1787, power in the US has shifted from the states to the national government is a bad trend. I believe the way our country was founded was each state as its own independent state and the main purpose of the national government should be or at least use to be to protect our citizens. What people don’t sit and think about is that certain law or ideas that national government want to set into stone might work in one state but not all 50 states in our country. Yes we are one country and we stand up for our own, but each state should be able to individually decide whether they need/want whatever the national government is offering to them.
ReplyDeleteWithin Obamacare/health insurance, I agree with what was said in the Bloomberg View article, “States have tougher budget constraints” and “States can adapt to local taxes” Like I state above certain things that can work in one state won’t necessarily work in a different state. We keep trying to improve this country with national government ruling but maybe we need to look at the long-term effects for all the states and how it will effect us instead of just concentrating on how it looks on paper.
Written by Marina Belfiore
I understand your opinion about the importance of states' rights, and that the federal government should protect it's citizens. Have you ever thought of protection in regard to something other than the military? (i.e. vaccines and civil rights)
DeleteI agree with you in the sense that protection is obviously a federal power. I think that we should share powers except issues affecting everyone. I also highly agree that what works in what state may not work in the others
DeleteI agree that the national government has the responsibility to protect its citizens, but I also agree that each state should have the power to decide what is best for that particular state. Each state is different. Each has it own unique set of economies, citizens, landscape, abilities, needs and wants. Some decisions that the national government makes may not be ideal for each state. I think it would be a great idea to leave the big decisions that affect the whole nation up to the national government and leave the other decisions that may affect some states and not others to the states. There needs to be a balance between the two. One need not be more powerful than the other. They also both need to work together and cooperate to make decisions.
DeleteI agree with your statement that laws and regulations that work in one state, may not work in others. Certain states, just like countries, have their own opinions on how they want their citizens to live. I do however believe that the states should remain equal in power, not one higher than another.
DeleteI agree with your statement that all the states work differently. I think that the national government takes away some of the individuality of each state.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these two articles, I believe that, while there is no ideal solution, the state governments should still have the majority of power, but the federal government should have more power than it currently does. I can understand what the author is saying in the article “Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea” that letting states control issues such as health insurance allows more flexibility. I don't think the federal government should force people to purchase health insurance. Think about homeless people - they cannot afford it. If some states require health insurance, people have the right to move to another state if they do not want to purchase health insurance. That way, people have freedom to choose what they want.
ReplyDelete“The Myth of States' Rights,” however, brings a valid argument that states have used their power to discriminate people and hinder economic and social progress more than the federal government has abused its powers. For example, some state governments have used their powers to promote slavery and discrimination against African-Americans. I think the federal government should have more control than it does so that these cases are eliminated. I think we, as a human beings, should have the right to choose but that every right we have should work for the good.
I agree that our states should have more power and control than the federal government but I also think there should be some sort of balance between the two. If we gave states the power, each state can address it's own immediate issues if we gave each state the power they need. I feel as if sometimes the federal government has too much power and can lead to weakening certain states and eventually overriding. If you were unhappy in one state, you could always move to a different state where you were happier in. I think that states should be able to control their education, healthcare, elections and marriages.
ReplyDeleteThe only cons to this would be if one state was more powerful than another, it could cause controversy such as inequality. It could also lead to one state having more power in healthcare so that state would be healthier than another state. Pertaining to education, if one state had a more advanced education system this could eventually relate to things like wealth and power inequality.
I agree with that federal government and states government should balance their power. Like she said if one state set a low which citizen don't really like, they can always move to the state they like. Sometime it is good if states government can have more power that citizen can have the rights to choose .
DeleteElizabeth,
DeleteI agree that there should definitely be a balance between the two. The national government and the states need to have share of the power and need to be able to work together. The national government does hold the responsibility of protecting the nation as a whole. Therefore, their main focus should be on those issues that affect everyone, such as national defense. The states, however, should have more power or control over the issues that affect each state differently. As I have said on my post and on other comments, each state is unique, each is different. If you compare Maryland, my home state, and West Virginia, there are going to differences. What works at home may not work for West Virginia or visa versa. State representatives know their own states and citizens needs or wants. Therefore, they should be in charge of those immediate issues that affect their own state, such as education, health care, elections and others.
I think that having a balance of power is extremely important and fair. It gives the government their own tasks and duties to work on and improve as well as the states get their own responsibilities. I think it is healthy to have power divided so situations can be looked at more closely depending on whose responsibility it falls under. I think that everyone deserves their rights, especially the states and the citizens.
DeleteI agree with your view on the balance of power between the states and national governments. The states and national government need to be able to keep one another in check, instead of trying to over power one another.
DeleteYour comment about the possible inequality between states was something I did not think about. I agree with you on that, also. I think that view opens up a whole new area to take into consideration.
i agree that the state would be about to address it's own immediate issues, but the federal government should act as big brother looking over and reviewing those state decisions. It does sometimes feel like the federal government has too much power and can lead to weakening certain states and eventually overriding, but whose to say that the states would be better or more efficient. The power of each state would have a much wider variation, and while some states would flourish, others would epically fail in terms of education, healthcare, elections and marriages.
DeleteAfter reading both of these articles and taking into account what we learned in class, I follow more along with the views of what's in the "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea" article. I don't believe that it should be in the government's power to control whether or not someone gets health insurance. American citizens need to be able to have the freedom to decide for themselves. Although I believe the government has the American people's best interest at heart when it comes to requiring health insurance, I feel that if you allow the government to have complete control over something that should be handled by the states or individually then it could lead to the government having too much power. Too much power for the government was not what the founding fathers wanted for America and it's citizens. The states should have more power just because they have more of an inside look of what it going on with it's citizens. The federal government then needs to look at how the states are governing and base their rules and laws on that.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it should not be in the federal governments power to control health insurance. I think power should be equally shared on some issues. Education is an example. I also agree that the founding fathers wanted more power to the states and not a strong national government
DeleteI share the same standpoint as you on the issue of it being wrong to force Americans to buy healthcare, as some people are not as fortunate as others. Regarding the federal government's power, I also agree that they are overstepping the original boundaries set forth by the founding fathers.
DeleteAfter reading both articles, I agree with the views of what's in the "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea" article. State governments should have the majority of the power. I believe that states should be able to control education, healthcare, elections, and marriages. I don’t think it should be in the federal governments power to control if someone gets healthcare. People should not be forced by the federal government to buy health insurance. If people are unhappy in one state, they can always move to another state as Glaeser wrote in his article.
ReplyDeleteLike Deborah said, “too much power for the government was not what the founding fathers wanted for America and its citizens.” Our country started by having independent state governments. Certain things that can work in one state won’t necessarily work in all other 49 states.
Christopher, I would have to disagree about the states having majority of the power, only because then the United States would not be one united nation. It would be too easy for it to fall apart. However, I do agree that states need more power and should be able to make their own decisions about marriage, education, etc. The states are incredibly diverse, one decision mandated by the federal government will not be what is best for everyone.
DeleteI could not agree more with this. I think that anything being forced is a horrible idea and is not what our country is about.
DeleteI dont quite get your reasoning, Christopher. When you say that you "dont think it should be in the federal governments power to control if someone gets healthcare", but at the same time agree with the author, who is OK with the STATE government mandating that someone gets healthcare, whats the big difference? It cant be that you simply are alright being bossed by the states and not by the federal government is it? You gave the argument that you could just move to a different state if you didnt like the healthcare policy in that particular state, but how can this not just be abstracted to "You can just move to another country if you dont like your healthcare policies in that country"?
DeleteI dont know, there are way too many double-standard type things going on with your justifications and unanswered questions for me to be on board with you.
After reading both the Glaeser and Friedman articles, I have found myself understanding both sides. In regard to Glaeser’s article, I agree with the idea that health care is not a privilege but a rights for all people. However, states should have more control over the distribution of health care in the state, because they understand the needs of their citizens. Massachusetts has been a very successful model of states’ rights, regarding health care. However, I disagree with the assumption that the average American has the means to move to any other state, if that citizen is unhappy with the state government. For instance, an Arizonan resident may not have the money necessary to move to a state that does not practice racial profiling laws. (see: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48920114/ns/us_news-life/t/judge-oks-arizonas-show-me-your-papers-law/#.VMaZpBB_csA)
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with a strong state government, I believe that is the right of the federal government to protect all United States citizens, regardless of which state they reside in. Friedman references slavery as a way that the states abused their power, and the federal government had to step in to protect the rights of Americans. In more recent news, the federal government, specifically the Supreme Court, is expected to ensure marriage equality in the entire country, which would force a few remaining states to legalize gay marriage. I support the federal government stepping in to give all Americans equal rights, as it is not always possible to move to a state that grants certain freedoms. (see: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP)
After reading about both points of view, I agree more with the "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea" article. States should have more power because one state could be very strict with laws and if someone likes that, they can stay in that state. If someone does not like strict laws then they can simply move to another state. If the federal government has most of the power, then moving from state to state will not change anything and people do not have a choice. Also I think that people should have the choice as to whether or not they want health insurance or not. By the government forcing us to have health insurance, they are taking away a part of our freedom, which is not what our founding fathers wanted. I do feel that the federal government should oversee state laws however. Each government should limit the powers of others.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your argument about how if someone isn't happy with the laws within their state they can simply move to another state. It is a simple solution to fix the problem. I also think it is a good idea for the federal government to oversee the state laws, I hadn't thought about that and I think it's a great win win outcome!
DeleteMy opinion is that the shift in power is not good. Also it can be seen as not necessarily bad. I believe that the states should have more power. I believe that the original idea of sharing power such as talked about in class with federalism is the best idea. Power is held within the state and national government and also the people. As for the debate of health insurance between national and state I think that needs to be a national government issue. I think this because its a national issue that affects every single person at some point. I personally think that requiring insurance should not be allowed. Somebody who decides to not get health insurance needs to realize the repercussions of that. The repercussions should be that if they cant afford medical expenses that they do not receive treatment. I realize this is harsh but I believe it to be alright. America is about freedom of choices and this issues is a choice. I believe states should have more power in situations where it affects people at more local levels. An example could be gay marriage. While it can affect people all over the country people at a state level should be able to decide to allow it or not. An example of where power should be equally shared should be education. Education should be shared because it effects everyone. At a national level we must compete against other countries and at a state level decide what that state needs to focus on. An article I think was interesting about state and federal power is http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/federalist-debates-balancing-power-between-state-and-federal-governments.
ReplyDeleteEvan Fordyce
I strongly with your philosophy on all of these issues, and we're very similar in ideals. The issue of health care should most definitely be left in the hands of the national government because it does affect everyone. Maybe they could make a nation wide solution, and leave freedom to the states to implement it how the like. Just like you said, with other social issues, they will effect us all as a nation whether we like it or not.
DeleteI do fully believe that power is, and has been slowly shifting from State and Local systems, and into the hands of the National government. I realize that the views on this phenomena aren’t exactly viewed eye to eye, and just like any political argument, it has it’s poles. I like to think that I stand in the middle of this issue for multiple reasons. I like the thought of having a strong federal government that can protect me when we’re in national crisis, however I also fear the thought of a socialist based government that has the ability to suffocate me with the power it contains. I also like the thought of state governments that can make laws to best suit them due to the fact that they just wouldn’t work for other states, however I also don’t like the idea of an “Articles of Confederation” based country with states that are so separate in policy that other nations have no idea who to even speak to settle national issues.
ReplyDeleteThe pros and cons could go on for days, but at least we know we’re not the only countries with this issues. As one of the readings said, other European countries have been faced with these same issues, and we all seem to be continuing on fine. I think we most certainly need our national government to be strong to serve us, and to keep us in union. I think we as states shouldn’t be constricted, but we also need to be unified and realize that we run better, and stronger together as a country. For now, I think we’re at a calm middle ground, and I don’t think we need to make any sudden actions or be too paranoid. We need to have learned from the past, and this link explains just what will happen if we don’t… Again.(http://www.hobart.k12.in.us/ge/cmedia/sttrghts.html)
Ben,
DeleteI didn't consider some of the points you talked about in your discussion. I am of the belief that there should be more of a balance between the states and the national government. I do agree with you that the national government should be the ones who handle all the issues that are going to effect everyone in the national, such as national security. States should be able to make laws that best suit them because state representatives know what is best for their state. The national government may struggle making decisions regarding health care, education or other topics because they are trying to make a concise decision for every state when every state may react differently. Each state has its own unique structure and they should be the ones making the decisions regarding those things that are going to affect them personally. However, both the national government and the states need to come to a calm middle ground, as you stated, and be able to cooperate with one another and share the power.
It seems almost everyone agrees that the standard of health insurance should be decided at the state level, and I agree. The reason we have states is so that each one can operate freely while the Federal Government acts as an overseer and interferes only when an issue arises. Every state has different conditions; different populations, income, age, races, etc. so in my mind they should be governed accordingly. Also, nearly every other type of insurance (car, home, etc) is dependent on the state in which you live due to the fact that social and economic conditions vary so greatly, so why should health care be an exception. We have to acknowledge also that there is a lot of lobbying and politics that go into putting policies into place, especially those to do with healthcare.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. Because states are so vastly different in how they operate they need to have the most control over things like health care. As long as the national government acts as an overseer, more power should go to the states.
DeleteI also agree that health insurance should be decided at the state level. However, I think there are many factors that need to be considered. For example, what if a West Virginia citizen became ill and was hospitalized while in New York? I agree with your position, but think there are many elements that need to be taken into consideration.
DeletePower shift to me would be a bad trend because I believe that States use their power to act independently in order to attract business by undercutting the laws of other states. For example, Delaware attracts incorporations by allowing corporations to do things in ways other states might want to make illegal. South Dakota had no limits on credit card interest rates, and major credit cards moved their headquarters to that state, creating a few thousand back office jobs and preventing other states from enforcing usury limits on credit cards.
ReplyDeleteStates rights often prevents states from enforcing laws they have written to embody their conception of justice, fairness, and the welfare of their citizens. These disputes should be settled by a consideration of the issues involved rather than devolving solely into a contest on who best parses the words of a document written long ago, often before the issues involved even existed.
You brought up a good point, that we rely on the words of wisdom from documents written before a lot of issues we now see have even been considered. I didn't think of that before. I always thought it was good to revert back to those documents because they are what our country stands for ultimately. However, times change and so do the struggles of our nation, so it is definitely important to consider that when using the Constitution or other important documents as a base for our arguments.
DeleteAfter reading both of these articles as well as taking in the information we learned in class I would have to say I think that the shift of state government to a more of a national government is neither a good or bad trend. I am stuck in the middle of both trends having to say I agree with points made in the article saying it is a bad trend as well as agreeing with points made in the article saying it is a good trend.
ReplyDeleteReferring to the Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea I would have to agree that I think that the requirement of health insurance should be a law made by the national government. I think that so many people are uninsured and people are constantly in and out of the emergency room due to illness or even accident with injury. So the national government requiring health insurance would save a lot of tax dollars going to the medical bills and hospitals as well. From the discussions in class I agree that I don’t think the national government should have the power to control speed limits because different states have different landscapes and roads are created differently according to the landscapes and weather in those specific states.
The Myth of States’ Rights saying how the national government supported a military and is an important safeguard to our liberties I think is a valid point and without the national government insuring that we have and maintain these liberties and by creating this safeguard we could have a relapse of the southern states succeeding the United States and we could have states making unjust laws.
I think the national government should be able to make laws as long as they follow the constitution and are fair and unlawful to the states but with saying that I think the national government should not over power the states and to ensure that equal rights remain through out the United States.
Written by: MacKenzie Smith
Whether we like it or not, there's no doubt that the federal government has more power today then state government. As we have learned, this all started back in the late 1700's when the federal government was granted power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce, and form a court that would hear legal disputes from different states(Supreme Court). Since this time, it seems as though power has never been fully restored to local governments.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after listening to our lectures and reading both of these articles, I believe that this shift in power is not a good thing and there needs to be more of a balance between the two. The federal govt. should not oversee all state laws. Different states have different concerns and implementing one set of rules for the entire country calls for disaster. In reference to the "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea"article, I believe people should not be required to buy health insurance coverage. Mandates and regulations that Washington imposes on private activity should be left up to states and individual communities. We are a country built on freedom and choice and if we do not want healthcare, then we should not be forced to have it. The federal government seems to be taking control over to many areas and is not considering the states or the people. I found this article to be very interesting & think it goes well with what we are discussing:(http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/butt-out-state-legislatures-move-nullify-federal-gun-laws-n185326)
Basically, firearms are being used to ensure states rights and several are fighting over bills aimed to strengthen the federal govt.'s authority over firearms. For example, in Utah, guns made, purchased, and used in the state are exempt from federal laws, as they fall under the Firearms Freedom Act.
Overall, I believe equal rights should remain on both sides and neither should have more power over the other.
I agree strongly with many of the points you made. I agree that this shift that is occurring is not a good thing and there needs to be a balance. Theres needs to be more of a power share between the national and state governments. Both need to be able to work together. As you mentioned, states have specific concerns, wants and needs. Therefore, they are the best one to make the decisions regarding their own state. Referring to the "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea" article, states have the ability to adapt to local tastes and they have stricter budgets. With stricter budgets comes more control over their budgets. I feel that the national government has no control over particular markets. As with health care and specific quotas for particular goods, sometimes the national government makes the wrong overall decision for the states. Each state is different and due to this fact, they need to be the ones to make these decisions, not the national government. It is somewhat unfair to make a single deacon regarding specific markets for the whole nation when each state is unique.
DeleteI definitely agree with several of your points. Each state has their own structure and different financial standpoints, economic distributions, poverty rates, etc. The national government is looking for our best interests but it doesn't benefit each state what so ever. I think it would possibly get too hectic if states controlled all of the power as well though mostly because of issues that deal with military services.
DeleteIn general, I believe the power shift from states to national government was bound to happen, and therefore I don’t necessarily think it has been gravely detrimental thus far, but it could become very harmful as the trend progresses. I look at it simply as, when something “bigger” is matched up with something “smaller” the smaller something ultimately loses. This may not be fair, but it stands true. The national government’s power shift is the biggest response to us becoming the UNITED states. We are supposed to work as a unit in some facets in order to create our country’s standards and regulations, but our individualities (states) make up the melting pot that diversifies our economy and ways of life.
ReplyDeleteMoving from big picture ideas to more specifics, I am actually fearful of the national government’s progressive controls on our behavior and rights. The state’s ability to communicate with its inhabitants in a more candid and direct way is reassuring that the citizens still truly hold thought and power, and what is best for that state usually is reached by a consensus of its inhabitants. As citizens of the United States however, we are not directly informed in the same manner, we are most definitely held from apparent truths, and on occasion, lied to. We won’t truly know what is going on; it is too complicated. It’s one thing to move from your home state because you are unhappy with the government, but it’s another to move to a different country due to the same issue. On the stance of nationally mandated healthcare, I am not for it. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it really doesn’t work for everyone, therefore not everyone should have to have it. This reasoning of course doesn’t work for every issue, because it’s impossible to keep everyone on the same side, but concerning an issue this prevalent and serious to our ways of life, it should be an individual decision. I see the national government as our country’s protector from outside forces. Inside our country, I believe states can, for the most part, hold down the fort, but outside of that, the national government has the floor. This means it should control our military and homeland security decisions, clinging on to morality along the way. I like this article explaining why the government can’t plan economies without planning people’s lives. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/10/governments_increasing_power_threatens_freedom.html
Overall, I don’t like the apparent trend that the national government’s power keeps increasing throughout the decades. It’s scary to think about in some ways, but I know it’s bound to happen.
It is easy to assume that there always has been, and always will be debate and disputes regarding what the National Government can and cannot do. Since the major shift of power to more National power over two hundred years ago, it seems as though the National government has become somewhat too powerful, or contains too much control over certain things that States should have more mobility and justice to.
ReplyDeleteAs noted above by a fellow student, I believe that the use of the Federal Government is to oversee any issues that arise among the decisions and laws carried out by the States themselves. The Healthcare issue mentioned in article one, "Federal Mandates are almost always a bad idea", sets a good point as to why the Federal Government needs to ensure all citizens with health insurance because everyone should be covered by healthcare, however, I don't believe that every citizen should be forced into healthcare. It should be the States ability to control and regulate what the residents of that state consider doing when registering for healthcare just as anything else being registered for (car insurance, a home, etc).
The Federal Government should be used as a backbone and foundation for certain aspects of America's well being, and should be taken into consideration when certain issues arise. However, the states should have more freedom to exercise their rights and strengths to every individual and society that exists in the United States. Not all decisions and power should be overridden by the National Government, but power should be expressed equally and accordingly between the states and National Government when America takes steps forward in the future of the Land of the free.
The article attached is very much related to the topic being discussed here, and I believe that it has a clear view point for my opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/states-need-more-control-over-the-federal-government
I believe power that the states originally have rights too should be restored, and respected by the Federal Government.
It is clear that the power of the government has shifted from the states to the national government over the course of time. This trend can be both good and bad, in my opinion. When the national government exercises more power to protect citizens or provide them with liberties, this shift in power would be considered good. An example of this would be the 13-15th Amendments, which give equal protections to all citizens, regardless of race or color. However, when the national government exercises and gains more power as a means to simply pass a law, it would be considered bad. An example of this would be the ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland. This ruling gave the national government the power to pass laws and go outside of its enumerated powers, despite the Tenth Amendment, which gives that power to the states. This use of the "elastic clause" has snowballed since that ruling into matters such as healthcare.
ReplyDeleteAs referenced in the bloombergview article, if the national government has the power to mandate that all people should have health insurance, what else can the national government mandate? The ruling in the ObamaCare case set a precedent of mandates taking place instead of states dealing with matters on their own. I feel that the states should have the ability to handle matters such as health care. The health care needs of West Virginia and the health care needs of Florida, for example, are different, and should be handled by each state.
Another example of the national government overstepping its bounds and into states' rights is the issue of medical marijuana. The following article tells about a Washington man who was, according to Washington state law, legally smoking marijuana for health purposes. However, the national government arrested him and sent him to jail due to Federal Law. This is an issue that could certainly be left for the states to decide without the national government attempting to seize power. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/05/opinion/sherer-medical-marijuana-prosecutions/
Joel -
DeleteI agree with you on the fact that the national government loves to overstep its boundaries, but it is because it has had centuries to gain so much power and "political say" that of course they're not going to step down in any way shape or form. As far as the healthcare matter goes, I always thought that states should go about their own specific healthcare issues. Like you said, West Virginia healthcare needs vs. Florida healthcare needs are two completely different spectrums, and should be treated as so as well. I was interested to see how many people have insurance vs. the amount of people who still refuse to sign up for it..I found a pretty interesting article here .. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-americans-still-lack-health-insurance/
Check it out if you have time!
Also - I checked out the link you provided as well, and I still can't believe that the war on marijuana is still going on..I mean honestly can people wake up and smell the herb already? lol But seriously, I definitely agree that each state should have control over what they want to do with marijuana because I mean look at Colorado - ever since medical dispensaries opened up last year they have generated millions and millions of dollars that have been put back into the local economy. I wonder how long it will take for each state to federally mandate marijuana, because we all know it will happen one day..
The continuously trending idea of national government power increases is something that everyone should be concerned about. the argument that the Huffington Post makes about the constitution being created for the purpose of foreign invasion is a fairly weak argument. Throughout time we have amended the constitution to better represent the United States in the current way society is living. One of the troubling things is that the national government tends to look for loopholes in the constitution to achieve wants and needs not necessary for ALL citizens. Medicare, a prime example in the article, is something that is needed by some but not all. We should be entitled to health care that fits our own personal needs and style. It's as if the government got lazy and didn't want to detail a way that we can fit medicare into our society effectively. The article suggested ways that we can deal with emergency room visits which I believe would be a very effective and efficient way to handle the situation of medicare.
ReplyDeleteAS the other article entailed, certain laws go into a grey area when it comes to state and national power. It's something that will always have problems unless one or the other gained ultimate power. I believe that state power is important, and like the Bloomberg article explained, you can move around to states that meet your preferences which is a cool way to think about the "melting pot" of the united states. The federal government should be positioned to keep the states in line by using it's current power and defend our borders. Other then that, states should be in control based on the people who live their and there views shown through voting.
I agree with you how the federal government looks for loopholes in the constitution to achieve wants and needs not necessary for ALL citizens. They do a great job in keeping America a strong nation, but like your example of Medicare, not everyone needs it. Every citizen in America has different medical needs, some none at all, some daily. There needs to be a new health system that the federal government can relate to each individual, regarding their income, health status, family, etc. With the republicans taking over congress maybe they will be able to develop a new system that helps all, but like most things in life, time will tell all.
DeleteI agree with the both of you. You both said it best by mentioning that everyone is different. Just because some people are not fortunate enough to have the health of other does not mean everyone has poor health. There is no need for everyone to have to buy the insurance. This nation is well kept by this government, but this may just be taking it a little too far.
DeleteI agree on the fact that mandating health insurance on people who are uninsured is a good idea because most people are not proactive and procrastinate about their health and future welfare. People don't put their health as a priority, therefore when they eventually come down with an illness or they have a bad injury, the cost of the ambulance, emergency room, and any addition medical needs rises. uninsured people are responsible for 17 percent of our annual emergency costs. By mandating health insurance, the percentage of this could drop. However, I also agree that to allow the federal government to have this power of forcing insurance on every individual is a little much. Just like how Jefferson bought Louisiana without discussion with the States in 1803, the people need to have a say in what behavioral control the federal government has. Jefferson was sporadic and due to this people were angry. If this decision to mandate health insurance on individuals is being forced it should be looked at by each individual state because different states have different economic statuses and should be able to control the education, health care, marriages, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn 1787 we ratified the constitution, and it has been the foundation of the United States for 228 years. The trend that we are switching to a more powerful Federal Government is threatening the integrity of the document of which we conceived to protect the people from tyranny. Government mandated projects such as healthcare, can be dangerous to our society. I am not saying that there should be a small central government because that would lead to ruin as well, but the fact that we are taking certain decisions away from the people it could lead to a socialist government that we have been avoiding since the beginning of our nation. For instance imposing externalities, like uninsured people, or increasing government programs that tax the people who don’t even need these programs is not only fiscally irresponsible, but it is also unconstitutional. Forcing the people to pay extra taxes on government programs that don’t directly affect them, is a form of taxation without representation.
ReplyDeleteInstead of the Federal Government mandating a program as a whole, each state should have their own idea of what is best for them. Letting the states control social issues like healthcare, welfare, and any other issue without violating the constitution would lead to a more efficient democracy. Federal Governments would not lose power entirely because federal laws need to be in place, and the federal government does need to make sure everything is constitutional, but there are many things that should just be left to the states.
Completely agree! The federal government keeps things a little more structured and organized but their interests aren't always what's best for individuals of particular states. Citizens are constantly being forced to pay into prgrams that have absolutely zero benefit to them and somewhat ruin their "freedom" and don't affect them what so ever.
DeleteThis is a really great post! I agree with all of your ideas. There is no need for the Federal government to mandate the whole program. I think if the states had some control, there would be more flow of ideas and better ways to use the program. I definitely feel that it would not only lead to a more efficient democracy, but it would push us into an age where compromise may be easier to find between political parties as well because not every states has the same political views. However, the free flow of ideas between states could lower tensions.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both of the articles and getting the information through lecture, I agree with the article “Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea.” Since 1787, power from state governments was shifting toward the national government. Using the main example from this text, I agree that the federal government shouldn’t have any control over whether or not someone gets health insurance. As an American citizen, we have the right to decide whether or not we want health insurance. How can the government make a generalization regarding a certain market, when each state is different and each state knows what is best for them? As mentioned in the article, states have tougher budget constraints that allow for spending to be more controlled and they are able to adapt to local tastes. States are more knowledgeable about their own individual issues and they know what their citizens want/need. Giving the national government all the power is certainly not the way our nation was supposed to be set up and proves to ineffective regarding states.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of examples regarding the negative aspects of when the national government has too much power. Take Wickard v. Filburn for example, which was mentioned in the “Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea” article. In this particular case, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 put in place wheat quotas in order to increase prices during the Great Depression. Filburn was farmer in Ohio who had 11.1 acres of wheat. However, he grew 239 more bushels then this quota allotted for and he was fined 49 cents per extra bushel. Once taken to court, the government won, but many don’t realize that establishing quotas has led to wasted wheat and high prices. Instead of the national government having the control in such a situation the states should’ve established a quota for their own state. States, as mentioned earlier, have more knowledge regarding the average amount of a set good that their farmers are generally growing. States could take an average and establish a quota that would’ve fit its needs and wouldn’t have led to wasted wheat and high prices.
Since 1787, there has been shifts in power between the national and state governments. There were many incidents in the past that have validated the fact that the national government had more power than the states for instance, Marbury v. Madison and McChulloch v. Maryland. After reading both of the selected articles, I have to agree more with "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea."
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I think it is important to have a balance of power if we all want to work together. I think it is the fairest way to live and allows responsibility to be shared. Therefore, each government can put more focus into a specific topic rather than tackling all of them. I think it is important for the states to have control because they are the ones living and interacting with their state citizens every day. Basically, the states know what is best for their own citizens. I don't think anyone likes the idea of power being held over their heads and control out of their hands, so why complicate things?
In the article, "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea" I agree that people do work best when they feel they are in control of their own future. I do not see a reason for making everyone have health insurance if they do not wish to have it. I think that it is important to be in control of your health especially because that is all we really have, anyway. What happens if the government makes everyone provide health insurance and then comes vaccines? This will only cause larger problems in the future and I think that is extremely important to recognize. This nation is supposed to be recognized as free, so how does giving all the power to the national government abide by that?
"In the Myth of States Rights" it says that the Bill of Rights does enough for protecting our basic rights. It further explains that if we already have the Bill of Rights then there is no reason to limit the power of the federal government to pass "necessary" legislation. I think that this statement is favoritism in a way. What if the states do not agree with a future law to be passed? We should obviously have the right to put in our input and have it be looked at and considered. We all live in this country together, so why not work together and consider the feelings of people living under this legislation?
After reviewing some post here, information from lecture and, reading this article "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea", it is obvious that the power has shifted from the states to the national government. Within this article it is interesting that the Federal government is enforcing the nation to obtain health insurance. Furthermore, you would think that such an issue such as health insurance would be up to an individual rather then the government enforcing it. I understand that there are homeless or the poor that cannot afford health insurance but what about those who can? They have the freedom to move if they don't like that states rules? That is completely nonsense saying that someone has the right to move, they shouldn't have to since they should have the right to not want health insurance. I feel that it is completely unfair to force a citizen from the land of "freedom" or so they say to have health insurance even if they do not want it. There are certain issues that each and every State has and they all very throughout this nation. Also their budgets are limited wouldn't it seem best that the state decides where that money should go? I am not against the Federal government trying to help the nation as a whole but certain issues such as health insurance should be up to an individual.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, to the other article "The Myths of States' Rights" points out a valid argument about how the States have abused their power more often then the Federal government has in the past. The states have discriminated against people mainly African-Americans. The states created laws that prevented African-Americans to vote, segregation within the schooling system, public transportation, bathrooms and etc. This is how states dealt with the abolishment of slavery, which is wrong that states thought they had the power to decide who could or couldn't vote. That is not what America is about this is supposed to be the land of freedom. Another example is that there were issues with monopolies in states as well. My point is issues such as these is where the Federal government should obtain more power then the states.
During class discussions, I was definitely leaning toward more power going to the state but after reading these two articles I’m somewhat on the fence about it. Overall though, I do agree with the writer of, “Federal Mandates are almost always a bad idea.” I think things like health insurance should be controlled by the state just because they have a closer view at what’s going on with their citizens. They should be able to control the distributions of healthcare instead of just everyone being required to have it regardless. I think the national government should pertain military control though, just because it would cause a lot of confusion and disagreement when it comes to war and I don’t think that would be in the best interest for our society or our freedom if it was determined by states.
ReplyDeleteState control is a lot more personal and takes into account individual’s interests and beliefs much more than the National Government, it gives citizens a better sense of freedom. Yes, the National Government is more organized and I don’t think they’re looking to tear down the State Government but their decisions only look at the country as a whole and each state has different economic circumstances, poverty rates, job outlooks, and population that the National Government doesn’t always take into account. Some laws benefit other states more than others because of these immense differences and if they had more control, they could address issues in a better way and if an individual didn’t agree with specific decisions and laws made by that state then individuals could simply escape.
I think it is a good thing to have the power in the national government because it keeps all laws pretty much equal across the nation. Like you said in class about kids traveling from Washington to Idaho to drink and killing themselves on the their way back. Having a national government in control that can place laws across the nation will and have preventing unfortunate circumstances like that one.
ReplyDeleteAs read in the second article it says that states can pass their own laws, as long as the law is constitutional. Which I also think is good because if there is a certain problem going on in one state that is not going on in any others, the federal government will probably look over it. In that case the state itself could pass a law to help stop what is happening.
Conner,
DeleteI believe that it is good that the national government consumes more power but do you think that by all states having equal laws that could cause problems between certain states? Each state is unique and has different types of people that feel differently about these laws, these laws might not be what is best for that particular state.
Conner, having the laws equal is a good thing, but there are certain states where the general idea may not be the best thing for them. All states are different and have different needs. National government power is good, but so is state power. The states can control what is best for their state and what would be best to carry out for them.
DeleteConner, I see where you are coming from but the way I see it is all the states are so different and they all have different needs and wants. I think it the federal government and states could find a way to work together than things could run better for the states because they know what they want/need.
DeleteWhen asked the question whether or not the shift from powerful state to powerful national government is a good or bad thing I have to say that I agree that it is more beneficial to have more power rely on national government. Although I agree with some of the points made article in the Bloomburg View that stated it was a bad trend, I still feel that my rights are protected and that many beneficial laws have passed because of a strong national government. The states are still able to pass any law that they feel necessary (as long as it doesn't not violate the constitution). Also, the federal judiciary are able to act and enforce the Bill of Rights if they believe the Federal government is acting unjust. Because congress has limitations on their power to pass laws our rights are never violated. What I believe is the most important point brought up in the article in the Huffington Post is that the national government keeps the states unified, protected from foreign invasion, as well as state uprisings because we have a unified military force. However, there are times where a powerful national government is a negative thing. For example, individuals needs are often not recognized and come second to corporations or the larger population. Although this is true I still feel that having a strong national government keeps our country united and does not hold the states back from exercising their powers. It is because of all these reasons that I believe a strong national government is a positive thing for our nation.
ReplyDeleteI thought your post was very insightful and I agree with your last point about the federal government at times using their power in a negative way. You mentioned how some individual needs are not recognized and larger corporations are. That's why I believe if the state's had more power they would look out for and help their individual citizens rather than support large corporations who are just seeking more power and money (like the federal government). There are plenty of things the federal government does to help the people, but too often that is overshadowed with selfish acts and lack of awareness for the great people of this country.
DeleteBoth articles are written pretty well. I do like the opposing views that are presented here.
ReplyDeleteIn the Bloomberg View piece the author Edward Glaeser has excellent economic points comparing “Obamacare” or the “Affordable Healthcare Act” to other points in history where the federal government has appeared to gain power thru intervening in the “free market” or other cases where federal regulators have interfered to the determent of American interests. He goes on to state the any time the federal government has stepped into a market regulatory role it has been a problem, such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. He states that there are situations that can make federally mandated healthcare an acceptable practice stating “If people are prone to procrastination, or undervalue their health, then mandating insurance is a means of forcing them to take better care of their future welfare”. He just worries by stating “I fear a federal government with to much power to control individual behavior”. He clearly states his opinion by stating “society generally works best when people take responsibility for their own future”. I can appreciate this point of view, but James Madison in describing a strong executive branch in his alter ego PUBLIUS stated “as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large … it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success” I take this to also mean that in the Federal Legislatures many more people will be represented that with the state legislatures. This is especially important now with the population 309 million instead of the 4 million at the advent of our nation.
The Huffington Post Article by Leon Friedman gives us an interesting perspective on Congressional Powers in comparison to European legislatures and state bodies of government. His perspective being a law professor is grounded in Supreme Court Decisions and is very legalistic. His resonating point is that the individual states being the supreme national power is an antiquated system, but rather having a strong federal legislature able to “pass whatever laws it wants”. He is very adamant in this point “In practice, the assertion of states’ rights really means resistance to progressive federal laws designed to alleviate the inequality in our society.” He also backs this point up earlier with stating the especially southern states had used their power to propagate some of the most heinous actions in US History. The actions he spoke of specifically Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, and blocking the Violence against women act. He states that misguided Justice Scalia quoted from another supreme court decision “…a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” I believe that this is in direct conflict with John Jay speaking as PUBLIUS “it appears evident that this will be more proficiently and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by 13 separate states…” while this is in support of creating and paying for a military and responding to a national threat. I feel that this applies to many more areas of public policy. This being even more prevalent as I stated in the previous paragraph with the population we have now.
When all comes down to it I believe I disagree with the Tea Party and what seems to be a prevalent opinion in this class that the states should be more powerful than the Federal Government. Flori stated in a previous post “the only cons to this would be if one state was more powerful than another.” The reality is that if the states were the supreme power of the nation then California and Texas and New York would be infinitely more powerful than West Virginia and Rhode Island. The population centers and the financial centers would rule all else. By having a bicameral legislature we have addressed almost all of the weaknesses of having a fair representation of the people. Now if we could eliminate the obstructionist policies of political parties then we would be farther forward in national progress.
DeleteAs the first few weeks of class have shown, since 1787, power in the US has shifted from the states to the national government. I believe our states and federal government should both have equal power because, the states know exactly what they need to be stable and successful but the federal government should keep the states in order and defend them when extra help is needed. However, it is clear that the federal government and the states do not have the same power. The federal government gained most of their power after the Civil War. Federalism was a political solution for the problems that were constructed in the Articles of Confederation, which gave the federal government little power. There are many problems with having the federal government having more power than the states, such as making states pass bills that the federal government seems fit, by offering incentives to the states to make them pass.
ReplyDeleteUpon reading the articles given this week and listening in class I tend to view things a little differently than I did prior to this course. In my opinion, there always has been some sort of debate over what our National Government is and isn’t allowed to do. People always like to reiterate their rights and the Constitution every time they disagree with what the Government is doing. It may always continue to remain this way as well, quite honestly.
ReplyDeleteOver the years, there has been a major shift in power from it lying in the hands of the States, to as it is now… in the hands of the National Government. I would agree with my fellow classmates when we say that the National Government may have too much power at this time. There are certain aspects of the law and government that they States should control with the reinforcement of our National Government, rather than the other way around. As stated by many thus far, the Federal Government should just oversee any problems that arise from the laws the States implement, rather than micromanaging every move our State Government makes. In example, the initial article discusses the Healthcare policy implemented by National Government, rather than forcing this on all citizens, it should simply be offered by our Government. Rather than causing problems for the people of the United States, they should be providing help and assistance. If the certain states feel that they need it state wide, then they can make that decision on a personal scale dealing with their population, rather than the country as a whole. I do feel that the National Government denies us of many of our freedoms as they are good at wording and manipulating their way into powers they don’t otherwise need. Although there were issues when the States were completely in charge of all decision making, after our class discussions, I feel that there is a happy medium and a way to balance the two without reaching one extreme or the other. I’ referencing the same article as many of my fellow classmates as I feel that it really drives my points home and reinforces what I am getting at : http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/states-need-more-control-over-the-federal-government
Bottom line is that some of the original power of the states should be given back to them to create more of a balance between national and state government. This would help our country to function better as a whole rather than one large mess, as it seems to be at times.
One question that may arise to some people is you said the federal government should oversee any problems that arise within the States, and that is agreeable. But, how do they keep a balance of all the rules and regulations of all the states in the US?
DeleteLindsay,
DeleteVery good response, but what do you think thee national government denies us of? You mentioned freedom but didn't go onto explain that.
I think there should be a balance between the states governments and the national government. After reading the articles and listening to the lectures, I noticed the instances when the states were abusing their power to oppress some of their citizens. For instance how the southern states made it almost impossible for African Americans to vote, which was their way of getting around the 15th Amendment. If it was not for the national government stepping in, there could still be the issue of the poll tax and literacy test. But the national government should not have total or even the majority of power, as nor should the states.
ReplyDeleteAs Elizabeth brought to my attention in her post above, states could have unequal powers between themselves. This reinforces my view about balance. The national government can help keep inequality between the states from happening. On the other hand, the states can keep the national government from gaining complete power.
I think this is a great example of why balance between the states and national government is so important. The national government should have the power to step when issues of civil rights, and other constitutional rights are in question. Most importantly I think this power should not limit a states right to its own laws that the state believes is best for its state, like a speed limit or drinking age.
DeleteI think that the powering shift from the states to national government is a bad trend and that there should be a balance. I do think a powerful national government was good in our earlier history for things such as the Jefferson’s purchase of Louisiana from France, and the national government fighting to keep our country united during the civil war. Now however I believe the 50 states require different things and should not be forced to comply with what the national government believes is best.
ReplyDeleteThe 16th amendment gave the national government the power to tax citizens. While taxation is important to keep the country running smoothly I believe it has gone too far and given the national government too much power in some situations. With a national tax comes grants from the national government, the national government has too much power because they can threaten to take away grants if I state does not set a certain speed limit or rise there drinking age, theses are small issues that should be handled within the state because every state really does have it’s own culture. The article also addressed how these types of mandates are almost a bad thing; with the example of mandating health-care coverage. It said it “created a “lemon market breakdown” where healthier people flee the market, leaving only sicker people to get insured. This leads to higher premiums and the continuing exodus of the healthy from the market” (Glaeser 6.) All in all they need to find a balance where is national government does not have too much power.
Very good point of individual speed limits set by each state why have different speed limits for each state if we all follow the same general set of rules?
DeleteSince 1787, the power in the United States has shifted from the states to the national government due to many factors out of the average Americans hands. I am a firm believer that the power should remain within the states; where a more day to day connection is made. One major issue throughout the country is that of health coverage or the lack there of. Should the government require health coverage of all citizens? Yes, in my opinion they should because all of us as hard working tax payers make up the difference. Obamacare was supposed to take care of some of this issue, but that hasn't exactly worked out yet to this point. In 'Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea' they make a very interesting proposal talking about how what if we charge every individual that does not have healthcare the average annual emergency room fee of $170 (Glaeser) What would this solve, if anything?
ReplyDeleteThey also speak on behalf that if we keep the power within the states, people that don't like their regulations can simply move (Glaeser Federal Mandates). A commonly thought theme is that West Virginia is an extremely underfunded state, and this is true. Many West Virginians as a result of this may need be able to afford healthcare like some else in a more high income state such as Texas. The New York times makes an interesting point in the article 'States Matter: America Is a Federal Government' stating, "People live in states. People work in states. People vote in states. People own property in states. People get married and raise families in states. In sum, the vast majority of the laws under which each of us abide are state laws, not federal laws (Brown States Matter)." (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/states-matter-america-is-a-federal-republic) This is easily the most important point of them all who do we deal with in our everyday lives, and that is the states so why as Americans have we let the national governments' power get out of control?
My opinion on shifting power between national and federal government is that they really do need to balance each other out. I do not think it is a good idea to put all the power to the national government. Each individual state has it's own separate needs for how to make their society work. If all the power is in put into one group that will control everything it will give people less of a say in what they want. Although I do agree that the national government does have certain obligations to make sure the country is safe, that does not mean it knows what is best for each state. I do not agree that the national government has the right to demand health insurance on each individual and that should be an optional choice. Both governments have our best interests in mind and they both want to help, which they can but not by taking total control over one another. Each state needs it's own structural guidelines but over all the country needs the same general type of plan. Some laws work better in certain states than others and the national government needs to take that into mind.
ReplyDeleteThe power has shifted from the states to the national government since 1787. I do not disagree with the national government having some power over the states but I do disagree on how much more power they have. Each state knows what needs to be done to in order for them to have a successful society. This being said, the national government needs to realize that not every state will work under the same set of guidelines or rules. I really like the example that Allison Smith pointed out a couple comments above about how the national government can take away grants if a state doesn't set a certain speed limit, why is WV's speed limit 70 and MD's speed limit is 65? The national government should have some power but let the states handle what needs to be done in their own state and the national government can act as a standard base. If there is a conflict, the states and national government should be able to resolve it together, not just letting the national government take over everything and demand that each state presents themselves in the way that the national government wants them to.
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
DeleteI thought the same thing regarding state power. Each state has different needs and wants that their people require. It doesn't make sense to have the same rules for each state when states like Texas and Colorado are two opposite states. It is important that both the national government and the states are able to work together in order to decide on laws that will positively benefit each state. If they don't work together there are going to be people in these states that are upset and cause the nation to divide, which is not what we want to happen.
After reading the two articles provided and your lengthy lecture notes, I believe that the federal government has grown too strong, and needs to let the states posses more power on their own rights. Before I go further into my explanation, I just want to say I believe there needs to be a true middle ground. Like anything in politics, one side is happy, the other is not, and there will never be a time where every American is happy no matter where the power is; national government, or the states, but there needs to be a new system.
ReplyDeleteIn the article written by Edward Glaeser, he made some great points on why the states should have more power. The first was, "The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938." This law put a quota on how much wheat a farmer could grow. One farmer grew 239 bushels than he was supposed to, and instead of letting that farmer use it for this animals, or even sell more to the federal government, they fined him 49 cents a bushel. How can a farmer be fined for doing his job, and then some. That's like fining a baseball player for hitting too many home runs, it doesn't make sense.Despite the fact that farmer was granted 11.1 acres to grow the wheat, coming off the great depression, that extra wheat should be celebrated and distributed to the less fortunate, rather than fine a farmer for doing a great job.
Next, Glaeser had one line about state's rights that I thought was fantastic. He discussed how certain states have tougher budget constraints (New York v. Wyoming) for example. But he said, "If people don't like a state's rules, they can always move elsewhere." That might sound harsh and extreme, but it's true, most Americans don't like the federal government anyway, so at least if the state's had the more power, they can move to a place they would live happy and in peace with their state's rules.
The article written by Leon Friedman agreeing with power of the federal government was very informative and smart, but I disagreed with one of his main points. He mentioned, "the banner of State's rights has been used to perpetrate and defend the greatest evils in our nation's history. Slavery was justified on the ground that each State should be free to determine its own economic practices." While this completely defends why federal government needs to intervene and times, I believe this is more dictated by the evil people that lived in the south, not the rules. The people that believed in slavery were disgusting un-moral people who didn't deserve to live under the same freedom as the other Americans. And this is why I mentioned earlier, state's should have their own rights but the federal government can not just disappear.
I know it would never happen, and is probably a waste of words, but I believe the state's should have their own power, with the federal government intervening when necessary, but can only change rule's under a new court system that overlooks state and federal issues and nothing more. I think this is possible because of promise and formula grants that work in America. This is a good system that the state's and federal government work with each other. If the state's need something, they can turn to the federal government for money. Obviously, there are some other factors that doesn't make this system perfect, but is a blueprint for a way state's and the federal government can lean on each other, and keep the power to the state's, who can ask for help from the federal government.
There is no doubt that the federal governments power has increased dramatically since ratifying the constitution in 1787. The revision was made to protect the people and give them specific rights. Federal mandates such as healthcare are a rising controversy in today’s society. I believe healthcare should be determined by the states, to accommodate to that states specific needs. The states should be responsible for handling smaller issues such as welfare while the federal government should be responsible for handling greater issues such as foreign affairs and global issues. With different states having their own laws, citizens will be able to decide which state fits them best. It allows someone to move to the state that best accommodates his or her wants and or needs. This will allow the government to still hold power but also give the states more room to control social issues.
ReplyDeleteMany people do not view health insurance as important as he or she should and it is thought that mandating health care will force citizens to become responsible in obtaining it. I believe people are lazy and simply rely on the extra tax dollars going towards Obamacare. My extra tax dollars should not be going towards mandates that do not apply to me. It should not be ones responsibility to make sure and or pay for another’s mandated health insurance. If some citizens desire to be lazy while others are out working hard, that is not anyone’s responsibility except for the procrastinator. There is a continuing battle between the national and state government, which will be hard to put to an end because you can’t please everyone.
I agree with this post in some ways. Yes the states should handle smaller issues because simply, they are a smaller entity! States should be able to do what is right for them based on their citizens' needs. I don't, however, believe that all the people that are benefitting from ObamaCare are lazy and unmotivated...that's too wide of a claim. The simplified objective of ObamaCare is to provide a wide range of healthcare options to people who couldn't afford it in the past. Also, the government probably does a few things you don't like with your tax dollars, so that shouldn't be your main argument in why you don't stand for it. I do not believe people don't see healthcare as an important issue in their lives, I just think they don't have the funds to protect themselves. ObamaCare at least attempts to combat that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the shift in power in the US from the states to the national government is a bad trend. Now, I agree that some things should be controlled by the national government like the military however there are some things that I feel should be left up to each state as an individual to decide whether they want it or not this is mainly because what will work in one state may not work in another.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said there needs to be a balance of power between the national government and states, and between each individual state as to not give one state more power than another. If one state were to have more power it may lead to inequality in healthcare or education.
I agree with your statement that there needs to be a balance of power in order to prevent one state from having more power than another, the states having more power than the national government or the other way around. I also agree that military decisions should be left to the national government, while states should decide on other issues that are more local.
DeletePower in the United States has definitely shifted from the states to the national government since 1787. While I believe the states back then had too much power, I believe that now the national government has too much power. The issue is finding a balance between the two. I agree with the article "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea" that too much power in the national government is not good. It provides multiple examples from history that prove why this is true, such as the healthcare issue where a breakdown can occur. The balance I believe would work best is to allow the national government to control issues such as national defense, but to allow the states to determine their own healthcare and marriage laws. I agree that states should be able to create laws that best suit them and the people that live there. In that case, if the citizens of that state are so against the laws, they could potentially move to another state that would better fit their lifestyle and needs.
ReplyDeleteIt was clearly a problem in the past when the states had too much power because the nation was very divided and the laws were so different from state to state, but now the federal government is forcing laws like Obamacare on every state, which doesn't work well either. The founding fathers feared too strong of a federal government for a reason and I don't think we should forget that. With each year, I think the national government continues to gain more power and I fear that we will soon be facing the problems the founding fathers warned us about.
After reading the first article regarding federal mandates, I am still quite conflicted on the topic. I believe that sometimes federal mandates can be placed for the well-being of all citizens, even though some may not like to believe so. Then again, concerning other issues, some people may not like the feeling of being forced to comply with the federal government's rules. With that being said, the federal mandate regarding healthcare is one I do not agree with simply because not everyone can afford it. Ultimately, I think my stance on federal mandates comes down to whether or not they force you to pay a fee or not and how much it is.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to whether or not states should be granted with more power, I believe that they should. Currently, I think that the federal government has too much power over the states and that states should be able to govern over topics like education and same-sex marriage. I think that if the federal government continues to legislate the way it is now, it will become consumed with power and our future generation will in essence, be screwed.
I do agree that these topics are quite conflicting. I understand that the federal mandates concern the well-being of citizens, however they barely take the citizens' incomes into consideration. Whether citizens are lower class or middle class, health care will always be a struggle, but necessity to have.
DeleteReading both of these articles has allowed me to become extremely conflicted on the idea of power between state and federal government. When reading the first article, it is clear that the federal government holds quite a large amount of power. I believe that the federal government should be in charge of controlling larger issues that have to do with the country as a whole and how it runs, rather than issues regarding the individual, such as healthcare. It is an interesting point that by the government having control over our healthcare, they have a lot of control over other personal things as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the states should be granted more power, however, I think that a balance between federal and state would be better. If one has more power than the other, the government may not be properly serving the needs of its people. I believe it is ideal to have the federal government handle larger issues while it is better for states to decide on issues that could impact their citizens, specifically through their financial state.
After reading the articles and listening to lecture, I still find it hard to define what is too much power. Back in 1787, it was necessary for the government to have more control because they were still trying to build the nation. Now that the nation has been built, I would say it is now time for them to take a step back and let the states prove that they can handle mandating many things for themselves. I do not think that states should have more power than the national government, because that has already proven to not work back when the confederates split from the nation. It would cause pure chaos, but I do think that national government power increases is becoming a bad trend.
ReplyDeleteThe articles mention the Affordable Care Act, and this is a prime example of the government over-stepping their bounds. I admire them keeping to the promises of protecting citizens of the United States, but there is not place for them to tell people they have to pay for something other than their taxes. If the states had just a little bit more power, there would be a greater balance between the state and federal government. People who want the health care will buy health care. There is nothing more to it. If people feel they dont need it, then they shouldn't have to buy it. The point is that the United States offers healthcare options for the people that do. At the end of the day, that is the important part. The United States was a place for the freedom to do what people want, not for the government to mandate every part of people's lives.
I do agree that it is an invasion of rights to mandate healthcare, it is not necessarily true that people will buy health care if they need it. Before the Affordable Care Act many Americans did not have the opportunities available and resources to obtain substantial healthcare.
DeleteWhen we think of a ‘balance of power’ we think of weighing between two objects, in this case the federal and state governments of the United States, both of which have presented interests in the powers, which control and shape the nation. These powers are clearly represented in the United States Constitution, and have been reinforced by the Supreme Court in numerous cases. Although the balance of power between the state and the federal government is an ongoing debate, I believe that states shouldn’t have more power than the federal government, states should only have powers that will benefit their own state because each states has different needs.
ReplyDelete1791 was when the states held power over the federal government after the tenth amendment was ratified. This amendment limits the power of federal government by reserving for the states all powers that are not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution. This ends up creating problems and slowly demonstrates why states shouldn’t have more powers. For example in the court cause McCulloch vs. Maryland, Maryland attempts to tax a new bank is denied as the judge rules the bank being allowed and believes federal government should be increased. One of the bigger shifts in the federal government was after the sixteenth amendment when the national government was able to levy income taxes and deal with citizens regarding taxes. It is important that America needs a central government that is able to enlist an army through taxing to raise money. As Leon Friedman mentioned in his blog, one of the most important purpose of a new national government was to defend the people of the country against a foreign attack. Another example of why the national government should have more power than states is when President Reagan attempted to change power back to the states, folding of categorical grants into block grants ended up giving states less money and a lot of general revenue money was wasted.
While the constitution is not a lengthy document and the list of powers enumerated to the federal government is short, the constitution provides a flexible framework for making needed changes, which I believe is perfect. After reading about the elastic clause from http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/f/elastic.htm, I learned that it ensures the government will have the power, which is necessary and proper to fulfill its duty (not state powers), and I believe this is the way it should be. The federal government is stronger now than it was at the signing of the constitution. This has come through the flexibility written into it by the founders. One thing I do believe states should be able to decide on is health insurance. The reason we have states is so that each one can make choices that will benefit their state, while the Federal Government acts as a supervisor and only becomes involved when there is a problem. In order to have a strong nation the national government and the states need to work together in order to be productive and make decisions that are the best for the country.
Since the late 1700s, power in the United States has shifted from states to the national government. After reading both articles and seeing arguments from both sides, I believe that this change in power has been a bad trend. The federal government should have less control over economic markets and what goes on within state borders. I believe there should not be many federal mandates because they end up coercing states to pass a certain law the government wants passed and in return will give the states more money for funding. I believe that states should have more control over their own funding because they have a better idea than the federal government of what needs to get done and where the money should go. I believe that states do a better job than the national government of limiting reckless spending and of controlling their own economic market.
ReplyDeleteA perfect example of the negative effect of the shift in power is the Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn. In 1938 the Agriculture Adjustment Act set quotas on the amount of wheat put into the interstate commerce and set penalties for overproduction. The goal of the federal government was to stabilize the market price of wheat so they could better regulate economic activity. However, some of these regulations led to wasted wheat and unreasonably high prices.
I think that the power between state and federal government should be equally balanced. I believe that each state is different, and so are the circumstances of its people, therefore each states government knows the needs of its people more and can then better care for it than the federal government. However, the federal government needs to be able to take control when it effects the well being of citizens in every state for the better. For instance, when the southern states tried to fight against anti-slavery laws claiming each state should be able to control their own economic practices (Friedman, 2013). Sometimes the states will use its power against the greater good, and same goes for the federal government, so neither one should have more or less power than the other.
ReplyDeleteReference
Friedman, L. (2013, October 8). The Myth of States' Rights. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/the-myth-of-states-rights_b_4057947.html
I agree that the power shift from the states to the national government has been clearer than ever since 1787, and I think it is natural for the government to protect its citizens. After reading both articles, however, my opinion is that the national government should not have much power over the states and citizens in this country for some reasons. As the Huffpost article mentioned about the States’ mandating health-insurance, better known as “Obamacare,” it is reasonable and will make easier for all citizens to receive medical service. But I do not think that system should not be worked for them because each of them basically has a right to decide whether they buy it or not in this country. Therefore, the States should not force them in that their health insurance.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason is that each states has its own characteristic and uniqueness according to their place, culture, race, age, and so on. So I do not think the national government control over the entire country always work for each state equally. In addition, if the citizens do not like the rules that are enacted in their state, they can relocate to another place where they prefer. As I mentioned first, the States should protect its citizens, but each state should have power to control them according to its characteristic. It going to help to keep the balance of power between the national government and the states.
While I do agree that people have a right if they do not see their state or country's rules and regulations fit their views, it is not as easy as said and done for families to pick up and move. I believe that if citizens don't take liking to the policies they need to try their hardest to change them.
DeleteAfter carefully reading each of the articles I have decided to agree that the state governments should have the majority of the power. There will never be an ideal solution but I think things will run more smoothly with the state governments being granted most of the power. By giving the states the power they will be able to address and fix most, if not all of their problems. States should be able to control healthcare, education, and marriages. It wouldn’t be fair for the federal government to force people to purchase health insurance. Whether or not each state wants something specific should be completely up to them.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of times we find that the federal government will use their power in a negative way. The only positive aspect of keeping the power in the federal government in my opinion would be having the laws somewhat equal across the board, which is something the federal government could do. There are certain situations where that would be extremely beneficial but I believe that for the most part allowing each state to have their own power will be the most fair.
I like your points and I agree with you on a lot of it. However, when you said that the states should have control over marriage, I believe the federal government should be able to have some control over it, especially in the case of same sex marriage. Not all states were willing to agree to it, and I believe the federal government should be able to override them as it is a case of equal rights. Everyone deserves the chance to marry the love of their lives whether they are gay or straight.
DeleteI agree with the same sex marriage case.
DeleteI completely agree with your statement saying that the states should have control of healthcare, education and marriages. I also think that when something/someone is given too much power they always abuse or take advantage of it. So, I think thats why states should have more control so they can accomplish the goals they are looking to achieve.
DeleteAfter reading these two articles and the knowledge I already know about the United States government, I believe that the states should have the majority of the power. I don’t think the federal government should force people to purchase health insurance. Think about the homeless people in West Virginia and other states around the U.S—the main dilemma is that they can’t afford shelter, so how would they be able to afford health insurance? If some states start to require health insurance, people have the right to move to another state if they don’t want to or can’t purchase it. In the article “Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea”, the author says “I am sufficiently libertarian to believe that society generally works best when people take responsibility for their own future, but given the importance of health care, a little paternalism is hardly a given sin.” If a state is going to have more governmental power, they should take the step forward to make sure that all their people are cared for to their best of their ability with the money they have.
ReplyDeleteRight as the “Myths of States’ Rights” starts off it explains that "Since the restrictions in the Bill of Rights already protect our basic rights, there is no valid reason today for limiting the power of the federal government to pass necessary legislation." So with this said, why can't we give everyone health insurance? States can pass any law they want, as long as it doesn't violate any rules. We need to take care of the people in our states, just as much as we need to take care of the country as a whole.
I'm glad that you brought up the situation with the Federal Government requiring everyone to have healthcare. You made a great point when you mentioned the homeless, I also had them in mind. In a perfect world everyone would have healthcare coverage, but that's simply not realistic in today's society. There are so many people in this country who have more to worry about then healthcare. Don't get me wrong, it's very important to have, however it is wrong to force everyone to purchase it. It should be an option, not a law.
DeleteI believe this debate has and will be a debate that continues forever. There will always be people who believe the national government has went too far and people who believe they have not gone far enough. It’s obvious that our national government has more power than our state governments today. I personally agree with the article, “Federal Mandate is Almost Always a Bad Idea”. When it comes to things like health care, I believe the states should have the right to choose what is best for their people. Every state is different.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel that the states should be monitored to ensure that they do not become too powerful. Power is good, but too much can lead to disaster. There needs to be a healthy balance between state and national government power. For example, the federal government should make sure healthcare is offered and available to all Americans, but the state in which they live in should decide whether or not it is required. Our health care system needed reformed, but federal government takeover in the form of the Affordable Care Act was not the best way.
The following article from the Tahoe Daily Tribune sheds light on how the federal government has failed us already with things like Social Security and Medicare. Can we trust the federal government now?
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/northshore/nnews/8444445-113/healthcare-government-million-democrats
I think the idea of states' rights, and states in general, is an outdated concept that causes more difficulties than it helps. Obviously, a nation the size of the United States is too large for a centralized national government to effectively manage: local representation is obviously needed, and that representation needs the ability to effect change and serve the will of the people. We have seen that the Articles of Confederation was a disastrous way to organize a country - the further we get away from that, the better.
ReplyDeleteAs long as there are individual, semi-autonomous state governments serving as a middle manager in this nation, there will always be conflict with the national government, as we've seen in this class. This sort of thing is inefficient and hinders the effective function of the United States government - and moreover, relying on this antiquated state system prevents other, possibly more efficient ways of organizing the way local representation and governance is put together. So I think the shift of the balance of power towards the national government is a positive thing in some ways, in that reducing the conflict between state and national governments will help everything run smoother. But as the balance of power shifts, what matters most is that the system of checks and balances continues to be strong, and that the voices of the people continue to be represented.
I will be honest in saying that I do not know all that much about politics. This being said I am not one hundred percent sure about my opinion on this issue. From what I have gathered so far, I believe the Federal Government needs to be the strongest governing body, but the State Governments could use more power. For instance, I think healthcare should be mandated by individual states, not the national government. The national government reigns over too broad of a population to make one decision to meet everyone’s needs. Every state is unique and has unique citizens. I thought Edward Glaeser phrased it well when he stated, “States can adapt to local tastes.” For instance, West Virginia may mandate healthcare because of the high obesity rates, while another state that is statistically healthier may decide not to.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think the Federal Government needs to have the most power in order to make sure the country stays united. The United States must be seen as one unit, not 50 individual states. In addition, it is essential for the national government to have a large amount of power because it controls the military, which keeps the country safe. I also like how the article by Leon Friedman noted, “We do have national elections for federal office every two years, just as the States do, as well as a vigorous federal judiciary ready and eager to enforce the Bill of Rights against the federal government.” The national government will always be kept in check by the Supreme Court and the many state governments. In addition, the citizens of every state get to elect the federal leaders.
After reading through both of of these articles and listening to lectures, I'm still very on the fence about my opinion in this issue. I feel that both the National and State governments should try to share the powers equally. I'm not naive enough though to belive this could actually happen any time soon. I believe the national government has their reasons for the bills and laws they pass. For example national healthcare in my opinion can turn out to be a good thing for this country. The mandated healthcare coverage is good because insurance providers can't charge high risk patients higher rates, they also can't deny insurance based on pre-existing conditions.
ReplyDeleteBut I also belive that sometims the national government doesn't always have the whole country in mind. I mean if we look back to th beginning of America with the 13 colonies it turned out terrible that the national governemt had all the power. Everyone ended up trying to go off on their own because the national government wasn't able to fairly control everyone. I mean there are downfalls to state governments as well having all the power, each state passing completely different laws than the other could be conflicting within the country. So as a whole it would be cool if we all tried to share the power equally.
After reading these two articles, I agree that the topic of political power will take a very long time to generate the "correct" solution. I feel this debate between the division of power will be around for along time, and contain followers that believe the federal government is too involved and that the federal government is not involved enough. Out of the two topics however, I agree with the article posted by Edward Glaeser stating that the concept of states requiring more with healthcare would be more reasonable. With the states more in control about such topics as healthcare, they would be able to develop and modify a plan that could best suite the characteristics and other details that make each state different. These individual plans would accommodate the individuals living in the state much better than just having one plan for the whole country.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes down to it, the power of the federal government should not be absent; it is key to very many decisions that help progress our country. The federal government should not overpower the states, nor should the states overpower the federal government. The balance of power is important, and some aspects should be decided by the federal government (ones of a more "global" aspect such as the military) and others by the state government ( ones of a more "interior" aspect such as healthcare).
After doing some research, I believe that shifting power from the states to the federal government is something that can be successful. Although I do believe it is a person's right to decide whether they carry health insurance for themselves and their family, federally mandated health insurance is not as bad as was rumored. People that at one time may not have had the opportunity, can now receive medical insurance. There are also mandates for all insurance companies that they must abide by. This makes those that are insured privately be able to obtain better health care coverage.
ReplyDeletehttp://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/a/Obamacare-Pros-And-Cons.htm
It is also crucial that the government, and not the states is in control of the military. It could be disastrous if the states ran their own military. It would be possible that we would end up with a civil war with every states difference of opinion.
The government is also trying to reform our current gun control policy. I believe that this is something that should be regulated by the states. Obviously, some states don't feel as strongly about the 2nd amendment as say rural West Virginia, but I believe that the federal government should not be able to place a ban if the majority of a state is against it.
I can't really say that I believe that the states shouldn't have the rights they do as the article "The Myth of States Rights" suggests. They do serve the purpose of balancing the power of the federal government. Though the article does suggest that there is no longer any need of worrying about keeping the federal government in check, there is good reason to believe otherwise. Just as in some cases the federal government has had to intervene in the case of some civil liberties being infringed upon such as in Little Rock, AK in 1957, the states need to be able to intervene in cases where the federal government may overstep its constitutional powers should the checks and balances already in place fail. Additionally the federal government is too large and cumbersome to take the powers reserved by the state and manage them effectively, what works for one region of the country would not work well for another so it's best for the state to manage it and the federal government only step in when the states may be infringing on their own people's rights or ignoring their best interests.
ReplyDeleteGood response, I agree with this! The part where you refer to one region compared to another supports my belief as well!
DeleteI am rather torn when it comes to labeling the shift from state power to national as a "good" or "bad" trend. As someone that is pro-big government, I believe that when laws and responsibilities are more centralized and mandated within a national setting they are both more efficient and better managed. Along with this, however, I also believe that with too much power, the national government could stand to be unopposed were the government to lose sight of morality or freedom. Although such an idea may seem ridiculous today, the reaches of the federal government should be kept an eye on, as infinite power corrupts infinitely.
ReplyDeleteConsidering this and the two articles, I would say that I'm in favor of the national government mandating certain responsibilities such as healthcare and currency, however, I would like to see a small shift back to the states. At the rate that the United States is headed, the states will have no authority on many matters, whether they be trivial or life-dependent.
William,
DeleteLike you, I too am torn when it comes to labeling the shift as good or bad. I agree when it comes to the safety of the country it is necessary to have a government that can enact power to keep the people safe. You, also bring up a great point about allowing the government to have too much power. If too much power is granted it would really harm the whole ideal of state interests. Just because were are a country together does not mean each state has it's own issues that need addressed. I feel it is essential that state power to always be granted. I really hope that it does not come to the point where there is no longer state power.
The topic between state power and national power has been a big controversy since the beginning times of our nation. I personally can not pick a side between the two, for I feel that national government needs to have power in order to make actions occur. On the other hand I also feel states should be able to regulate their own lands with certain laws. A great example of this would be the new trend that is occurring today in our society, the legalization of marijuana.
ReplyDeleteI choose to use this example for it has grown very popular of the past few years with almost half the nation having legal medical marijuana and four states and the District of Columbia with legal recreational use. The conflict occurs because on a national level marijuana is still considered illegal. Now for this issue I would be in favor of state law because on a medicinal stand point marijuana has been proven to have multiple medicinal benefits. Yet, the national government by law is permitted to enter these states and bust the dispensaries that provide marijuana to patients. I feel that this is wrong and that the government should not be allowed to have such power as this. But then there are circumstances I feel national power is required for the better cause. No matter what I will always have conflicting views between whether more national power is good or bad but for the issue I brought up I would say bad.
I think bringing up the situation of marijuana being debated between states brings up a very good example.
DeleteI can not really decided which one I agree with more. I think they both have valid points of argument. I do think that the National government should have more power but the states should still be able to control some aspect of the law. When it comes to national problems and when the United States needs to make a big decision on something, the National government should not take into consideration of the states opinion. The National government should also control health care and money but there should be some changes in the qualifications on medicare and welfare. Everyone should not receive it because it just hurts other people who are in the lower-middle class. When it comes to military, the National government should be in charge of this. I think that if the states control this power then there would be some type of fighting with states over political issues.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the states, I do think they help balance the power of the national government. As Jesse Hedrick said in the blog, that there is no reason to have to worry about keeping the national government in line, I believe that there is. Personally, I think the government would have too much power and that is never good. The states haven some power limits that with the National government which I agree with. Overall, the debate with the division of power will continue to go on for a very long time.
I agree with that you are saying. It is hard to decide which side is best for the United States. The National Government should take the states into consideration, but that is not usually the case. An equal balance of power would be ideal. Like you said above, this debate will go on for a long time.
DeleteSince 1787, the power in the United States has shifted from the states to the national government. In my opinion, this is a negative trend. Our Founding Fathers set up our government and constitution in a way that allowed the states to have more power. There is shared power, but mainly the states have more responsibilities. The Bill of Rights was created for the National Government to not gain too much power. The National Government should serve as a basis and be a strong central government, but allow each state to have their own rules and regulations. The United States is a whole but divided into different parts. States have the ability to govern themselves and should be allowed to do so. As the Edward Glaeser article says, “states can adapt to local states… if people don’t like a state’s rules, they can always move elsewhere”. I agree with what this quote is saying. People can choose where they live and if certain states have different laws and ideas, they can move to where they see fit. Allowing the states to have power over things, such as healthcare, allows for more flexibility and control. The federal government should not make decisions like this for the entire country when the states are completely capable of doing it on their own. States have a more “personal” approach to the citizens, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn class, the discussions always made me view that the states should have more power. The different examples of how and why the national government started gaining more power over the states was almost “sneaky” to me, such as McCulloch v Maryland.
People have been divided on this issue since the beginning, such as federalist and anti-federalists. It is something that people will agree to disagree on. Each article gave good points to this argument and it made me think hard about which side I was one. We each have our own opinions on whether or not the shift in power is a good or bad trend. It just depends on how people view it.
Federalism has been the constant struggle for our nation since the beginning. Our nation was formed from the fear that the federal government will get too much power and forget the actual reason why we broke away from England in the first place. There really should not be a fear that our government can make a law without us having a say about it. We were founded on the thought that each state has their own rights, and the national government would be there for us about those decisions and to protect us from a number of things. Each state is not the same, they all have different needs and wants. I feel as if the national government wants the best for the nation, but doesn't see that one law might not work for each state.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of examples that this type of struggle applies to. Not only with the articles given about healthcare, but examples from class on the drinking age, speed limits, BAC levels. Just because there was a problem on one road mainly from drinking and driving the whole nation was penalized for it. Many different states didn't agree that the drinking age should be moved from 18 to 21, and they fought for it. In the end however the fear that the federal government was bullying each state that didn't agree with the raising of the drinking age. If the states did not agree they were faced with a 10 percent cut of their federal highway funds. With things like this I don't agree with how much power the federal government has, and what they can do with it. There should be a line that the federal government can't cross, when the states can actually make their own decision to adopt a law or not. It is actually not fair to the states because they can be manipulated and punished for standing up and saying they don't agree with whats going on.
http://www.boston.com/health/2014/07/17/why-look-our-nation-drinking-age/rzK2FA5UYj0LgwJ5Ujrr7I/story.html
When reading these two articles and thinking back to our class discussions, I still feel very strongly about my original opinions. Although, I may not know as much as I would like to about politics and the government, as a citizen I know I am entitled to these beliefs. And as a citizen I believe that Americans should not be forced to have health insurance. Some people can’t even afford a home, so how does the government expect them to pay for health care. I do not agree with this federal mandate concerning health care because I believe that we should have the right to choose whether or not we want to pay ridiculous amounts for ourselves or our families. I believe we should be allowed to choose an affordable alternative, even if it is something such as universal health care.
ReplyDeleteAs for the issue of whether or not states should be allowed more power, I believe they should. As an individual state, we should be able to have full control on education, health care, same sex marriage, guns, and so on. I understand that in order to save conflicts and inequality the federal government does need their power too. However, their power should have boundaries concerning the military, foreign currency, and problems between countries or states. When thinking of a “balance” of power, there is almost never really a balance. The federal government can always interfere and adjust what they disapprove of.
I have gone through both the readings and the notes and have notice that the national government has been gaining more power. I do not completely disagree with this trend because with out the influence of the national government our states would not have a united front. In my own opinion I think that the national government should have power over the bigger decisions that need to be the same from state to state. In the article “The Myth of the States’ Rights” it takes about haw some states have abuse their power to discriminate against certain groups of people. The national government is put in place to help create unity through out all of the states.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I do understand why people want state government to have more power then they currently do. Reading about the mandate of health insurance in the article “Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea” showed me that some policies can end up hurting more then they are helping. I think the national government should be looking over the state governments but in the end the states should choose what is best for them. A more equal distribution of power would be better for both governments and for the citizens.
I agree with your statement about the national government looking over state governments. I think we do need a more equal representation of power between both governments.
DeleteI agree with your statement about the states having more power to decide what they want. I think with a balance of power and the federal government and states working together it will help the states achieve the goals they are looking to accomplish because they know what they need/want.
DeleteAfter reviewing my class notes and reading the articles that were provided I stand strong on my argument that less government control is more beneficial to our government especially concerning health care issues. However, I do think that some government power can be beneficial. Our nation was created in a way so that the states and the people of America can have more power and influence, however over the years the states have lost more and more power to the national government. When it comes to health care, gun control and education I believe that the states should have a bigger influence than the national government. However, when it comes to the legalization of gay marriage and social issues I believe that the national government should intervene.
ReplyDeleteI can see why people would argue for and against government control, but I think that the ultimate solution is compromise. I believe that issues that concern sex, race etc. should be in the government's control, but others issues should be left for the states to decide. I think that if the national government gained too much power that the majority of the United States would suffer, but if the states and government worked together like they were designed to then our country would flourish.
I really like the points you made in your second paragraph. The national government certainly should have a pretty high degree of power, but they should use it wisely. When they start meddling in issues that have no great barring our country as a whole, problems begin to occur. Unity between the state/national government is essential for our country to prosper.
DeleteIt has become an undeniable truth that the Federal Government is continually growing in power. The Federal government now has its hands in almost all aspects of our lives. This is a pretty scary trend, but not quite as dire as some make it out to be. No one wants the government interfering with their everyday lives, but it can be viewed as a kind of necessary evil. We need the National government to hold a certain degree of power in order to keep the states united. Without the national government, states could become power hungry entities that could create huge abuses of power.Without state unity you get things like The Civil War, which is a route that no one wants to go.
ReplyDeleteWhile the growing unease with the rise in power of the national government may be a little overblown it is still a little worrisome. The national government should act as more of a moderator, making sure that the states don't step out of line. In reality, they've been acting as more of an immature big brother, forcing unwanted policies and laws onto unwilling states and citizens. This is creating a pretty large degree of unease that is in turn spawning a lack of distrust in the government on all levels.
You make an excellent point when you say that the national government should act as a moderator. I also believe that more power needs to be given at the state level, with the federal government acting as the moderator. Currently, there is too much unnecessary intervening, which is creating problems. Although, as you mention, the federal government’s intervention is not as scary as some believe, it is something that needs to be controlled.
DeleteWhile the balance of power between the state and federal governments is a crucial component to the functionality of the U.S. government, these powers can not always be evenly distributed. Based on the readings our class has been presented, I believe that it is in the best interest of the people for state governments to posess the majority of legislative power over their respective states, rather than legislation mandated by a federal governing body. My main basis for this is that America is such a large and diverse nation that state governments are reasonably more adept at producing effective legislation for their residents. Of course all citizens of a state cannot be totally satisfied with their states laws and mandates, but as Edward Glaeser states in the first article: "If people don’t like a state’s rules, they can always move elsewhere."
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, I find great fault with several of the points that the author, Leon Friedman, makes. Friedman argues that the source of power behind any governing body is its military, which in America did not initially exist on a national level. He argues that it was necessary for the military power in America to transfer from state militias to a national armed force. While I also agree with this, I believe that the founding fathers foresaw a day where state militias may still be necessary if the national government were to become to powerful, as England had. I think that it is still easily possible for any national government to become too powerful, which is why I strongly disagreed with Friedman's contention as though it is totally possible for the U.S. government to take on some tyrannical form when he writes "Is there really any risk of tyranny from the federal government? Is there any chance that an ambitious general will call out the army and take away our liberties?" In my opinion, this way of viewing things is what has lead to the downfall of liberty in the past.
After reading the two articles, I would have to say that I agree with the article that states that federal mandates are almost always a bad idea. The article discussed the issue and fear that one day the federal government will have too much power to control individual behavior. The article also touched on the issue in the health care market. I agree with the text and article when it states that it would be unfair for them to mandate one issue in the states, and force them to get healthcare. I think it is simply unfair for the federal government to force each individual to have healthcare, even if they do not want it. This is the land of the free, and each and every citizen should definitely have a say in whether or not they have healthcare.
ReplyDeleteEach state should be able to have better control over the distribution of healthcare as opposed to the nation being forced to have it. After reading different points I would have to say that I believe states should hold the majority of the power. As many posts before me mentioned, each state knows what is best for the individual state as a whole. Each state has their own personal issues that may not be the same as another state.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fact that the power lies within the national government and not the state is a bad idea. Just think about it there are some things that the national government may pass or make as a regulation that will make things easier for some states but on the other had will make it difficult for other states. Many states have their own needs and wants and I don’t think the national government can meet the needs of every single state with their regulations. They also might feel as though something that is important to one state may not be as important to them or they may also see it as unnecessary. As a country we will agree on somethings but I do not see how all 50 states of us can agree on everything, it’s just not possible.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I can say that some of balance between the two would not be a bad thing. Some intervention of the national government may be a positive thing in some cases but not all cases. There needs to be a point where the national government can see where they are overstepping their boundaries or the states need to let them know okay it’s time to back off now. With that being said that does not mean that some states do not need the help because I feel as though some states would use this power negatively instead of for good but that cannot be said about all of them.
I really agree with most of the points you have made and agree that the states do have their own needs and wants and should be able to have more of a say. All the states are so different and all need/want different things and the individual state knows what they need the most.
DeleteThe topic of whether the states or the national government should have more power is always tricky. Sometimes I believe that the national government should just take care of things. Yet, when it comes to implementing one policy for everyone such as health care insurance, like in the BloombergView article, I tend to change my mind. In my opinion though, I do not think the trend of giving the national government more power is a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteThe BloombergView article states that one of its fears is that a more powerful national government would control people individually. It would control behavior and most likely makes errors in doing so. The article defends this by saying states have limited budgets, which would limit them and make them more disciplined. In my opinion though, I believe this could be a flaw of the states. They have less money, so they have less power, which means implementation of policies, organizations, and more are limited because of smaller funds. This could actually in turn limit individual behavior.
Another reason why I think giving more power to the national government is not necessarily a bad thing is because, when people seek certain protections, they are agreeing to behave a certain way. John Stuart Mill upholds this idea in his essay On Liberty. Mill states that society must have the power to curtail certain behavior. However, Mill believes this power is limited to only preventing behaviors that harm others. This means that the government as the power to restrict, but only in moderation. I agree with this claim. I also agree that both sides have strong arguments on this topic, but at this time, I think I will side with the national government receiving more power.
Source: http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html
When discussing and debating whether the national government should have more power or if the state should have more power, there are very persuading points made on both sides of the argument. With a strong national government, the state lines get blurred while with a strong state government, one country becomes fifty.
ReplyDeleteIn the Bloomberg article, the argument on why the states should have more power is discussed with health care being the main example. The article made a very good point when talking about how different states have different budgets, spending, and population making a stronger state government in that sense more beneficial to states so the health care laws can conform to the states. In The Myth of States' Rights article is talks about how the states benefit from a stronger national government with examples such as Shay's Rebellion.
After reading the two articles, I believe a balance of powers is the most beneficial path as a strong state government for some things such as health care would be better while a strong national government regarding things that help the states as a whole benefit would be better.
Looking at the topics covered so far in class it is pretty obvious the federal government has grown in power. The Affordable Care Act is a topic that encompasses this idea perfectly but the increase of power isn't something that has occurred all at once. Another example is the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984. This act set the minimum drinking age to 21 years of age. All 50 states abide by the act but another part of the law shows the reason why. If a state would lower their drinking age the would receive a ten percent cut in federal highway funding. While the states still have a "choice" the repercussions would not bode well for them. This example I think really shows the bind that the Federal Government can put on the states.
ReplyDeleteThe expansion of the Federal Government to me is a bad thing. The main reason being it increases the distance between the citizen and the people who are making potentially life changing decisions. This to me is a huge problem for all people whether they exercise their rights to vote or not. The Federal Government does need to have its share of power. It has to be able to unite us as one nation and interact and represent our people to the other nations of the world. Too much power though and then the country becomes exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent. I myself believe that the states need to gain some ground on the Federal Government on the power scale.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/alcohol-policy
Christian,
DeleteI would have to agree with your observation that the growth of the federal government is, in fact, happening and very apparent. However, to play devil's advocate, I do not thing that it is necessarily as bad as you make it out to be. Most of the negative connotations that the federal government are associated with are just media projections of what big companies want you to think.
We have an entitlement as Americans to all the freedoms that other countries may not have, yet we are most prone to attack the people who are appointed to protect these freedoms... Just a thought.
After reading the two articles and attending the class lectures I have come to the conclusion that the shift of power to the federal government is overall a good thing. However I do believe there should be a balance between the two. The Federal government has helped us progress as a nation by passing voting and civil rights acts. If the federal government had not stepped in an passed these acts the laws that were in place, before these acts were passed, could possibly still be in place. However I do agree with the article “Federal Mandate is Almost always a bad Idea” when it comes to topics like health care. I believe the state government should have the right to choose what is best for the population of its state.
ReplyDeleteHowever in my opinion the federal government having more power then the states is a good thing. With the ability to step in and establish laws that all states must follow the federal government makes the nation better as a whole. The government with these laws and regulations, which can be deemed unconstitutional, can help steer the nation out of different crises. As stated above the social rights acts put in place by the federal government is also a good example of why the federal government should hold slightly more power. When the states had their own discretion of the laws the laws were manipulated in ways that made the laws still unfair to the African American population of those states. All in all the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. What this means is the country needs to progress in a way that the population as a whole is better off and this is mainly provided by the different acts of the federal Government.
written by Cody Walker
After reading both articles I agree more on the side of the article by Edward Glaeser, "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea" because of the sole fact that our country was created for independence. Glaeser states, "I fear a federal government with too much power to control individual behavior" and this statement really made it clear to me. Anything forced is a bad idea in regards to the healthcare. Each state has a different life style and habits and personalities from one and other the national government cannot justify one law to satisfy everyone. I do think that they can have the last approval and make some slight guidelines but over all the states should have the power.
ReplyDeleteIn Class we talked about how some states do better than others and that there is a huge variation. I do not think one state would have to change their regulations if they are running smoothy. Variations leads to different laws and each state should be able to decide there own to an extent.
Mary-Kate,
DeleteI don’t agree with the statement that anything forced is a bad idea in regards to healthcare. I have what is called a “preexisting condition” which means I was born with it. Without The Affordable Care Act, insurers could legally deny me healthcare or raise my rates. This legislation “forces” insurers to cover me so that I can get the care I need. Technically speaking, no one is forcing you to have health insurance; you will just receive a penalty if you opt out. If you cannot afford health insurance, you can receive Medicaid which helps low-income individuals or families pay for medical costs. Similarly, the federal government “forces” companies to pay their employees a minimum wage. It also “forces” regulations on food companies so that they don’t put harmful ingredients in our food. The word “force” when describing the federal government is fair, but not necessarily bad.
Mary-Kate:
DeleteI do agree with the statement about the government having too much power to control individual behavior. People shouldn't be forced into buying healthcare when they simply can't afford it. I agree that each state has different kinds of people and that the federal government can't satisfy everyone this way. More people would be satisfied if the laws varied by state and they definitely do need more power than they have right now.
I would like to have a very strong opinion about believing in one or the other but after reading both of these articles and through personal experiences, I am indifferent about whether state or federal government is better. I believe that states should reserve the right to make and pass laws themselves seeing as though from time to time, Congress does not make decisions in the best interest of citizens even though they are supposed to. Another thought that I keep in mind in this argument is a personal experience of my own, and that is when I did not have medical insurance and had a hernia and was in an extreme amount of pain. I applied for a medical card under Medicaid, and they sent it to my house very quickly and I was able to have surgery and feel significantly better. Without the federal government and President Obama's healthcare plan, I would most likely still have it because I had no other insurance and my father had recently been injured at work. I am very grateful for the federal government in this regard.
ReplyDeleteOne other personal experience that I have is not with me personally, but my father. He was a roofer and feel ~23 feet off of a ladder and attained significant nerve damage, but did not break any bones. For this reason, many of the doctors that he went and saw claimed that he was faking. He filed a claim with Brickstreet worker's comp (a state institution) and was told that he was only 3% disabled, and to go back to work. He was forced to pay for his own doctor's visits, and when he went to Social Security (federal), he was told that he was fully disabled and now receives benefits. In another case, I am very grateful for the federal government for believing that my father was in fact harmed on the job and that it could have been prevented. On another note, I am very grateful for state governments regarding laws such as gay marriage laws. I think it is truly a beautiful thing that West Virginia has adopted gay marriage in the state. These laws are very important to people who may be different, but should not be kept from being happy. The state and federal government argument is a longstanding balance that I cannot form a valid strong opinion about.
After reading your post and hearing about how much the federal government has helped you and your father, I am surprised that you do not have a strong stance towards giving the federal government more power. That said, I believe that the states keeping some of their power is important, but it is apparent that in your father's case it was beneficial to have a federal government to help him when his state government failed him.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe that all power residing in the federal government would be detrimental, I think shifting more power to the federal government would benefit (and has been benefiting) us as a country. States tend to exercise their rights when it concerns social norms such as slavery and civil rights. More modern examples include gay marriage and the recreational use of marijuana. I believe a larger federal government could better address inequality and injustice in our society since this has been the trend historically. However, I do admit there are exceptions such as the wheat quota tax mentioned in the Bloomberg View article.
ReplyDeleteBoth articles generally agree that the Affordable Care Act is a public good. It lowers healthcare costs, expands coverage, and prohibits insurers from dropping your coverage, raising premiums if you get sick, and denying coverage if you have a preexisting condition. It also ensures that your child can stay on your health plan until age 26 (beneficial for college students) and lowers costs for women who previously were required to pay extra because of their gender. Other beneficial products of the federal government include the regulation of food to ensure its safety, improving working conditions, and creating a minimum wage. I understand Americans’ fears and concerns about tyranny via a larger federal government, but historically, the expansion of the federal government has done more good than harm when it comes to creating equality.
I agree with your stance, Elizabeth. The states should still have some power but if they give up some of their power then the entire country could benefit.
DeleteThe entire country could benefit, but what happens if not every state wants exactly what the "country" wants?
DeleteWhile a shift in power has resulted in many great advances for the United States throughout history, I think the continuing trend of shifting power from the states to the federal government is particularly negative. We live in a large country with many different regions. Each state has different needs and wants, not to mention vastly different people and landscapes. Many states have extremely different sources of income and depend on particular industries to support their economy. Continuing to increase federal power will hurt each state’s ability to protect and provide for their citizens. As Leon Friedman’s article addresses, the states probably don’t so much need protection from a tyrannical government. However, protection of each state’s jobs and economy is reasonable. A government mandate to outlaw one particular item could crash an entire state’s economy, cutting jobs, and bankrupting many people. People need protected from that.
ReplyDeleteAs Edward Glaeser discusses, each state can tailor its actions to fit the needs of its people. What might help one state could seriously damage another state. I agree with Friedman’s argument for equality among the states when it comes to basic, major rights, but there are just certain aspects of governing that will not work the same way in each state. Like with the Affordable Care Act, there is a lot of good that can come out of making sure all Americans have adequate health coverage, but if this power was left to the states, then each state could create a required health care plan that best suits its people, economy, and individual circumstances. Federal intervention does not ensure the best outcome for everyone. However, if the states are in control, each state can modify its laws and regulations to better suit and please its own people. I don’t think that every shift of power to the federal government has been bad for the states or its people. But I do think that if the federal government continues to absorb powers that should be granted to the states, many citizens of the United States could suffer.
Bringing up the point of how each state has different needs and wants is a excellent point for the negative aspect of the federal government gaining power. The difference between two states can be vasty different such as being from the east or west and the states need different laws and regulations for their economies and industries.
DeleteI agree... the East and the West parts of the United States have very different social, economic, and political views. Just like the needs and wants of every family is different.. same goes for the governments.
DeleteAfter reading the articles and taking into account class discussions, I lean more towards neither of the articles. I feel as if they both prove important points, and are both persuading, I stand with them equally. While I do not disagree with the health care coverage being required for all citizens, I do believe there are some things that the Federal government has control over where it should at least be equal between the states and government. I say this because I feel as a state, there are decisions to be made that other states across the country likely will not have the same outlook on. At the same time of thinking of the differences between states, I do agree that the Federal government in control of these certain things are what help the United States to grow and become united. One thing I don't agree with is how some assume that healthcare cannot be afforded by everyone, if this is the case, there are most likely alternatives and healthcare providers that will work these people to make sure they can figure out a way to afford it. I look at it in a more positive outlook that those who may not have had the opportunity to have it before, now have this opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your response, Destiny. I believe as well that both articles have vital points. Also, I am stand behind you in health care coverage being required for all American citizens. Thank you for looking at both sides!
DeleteI agree that the healthcare should be required! That is something that benefits everyone in the long run, and i think people are too focused on the fact that it's not benefitting them at the very moment.
DeleteI have read both articles as well as did some research on my own about this topic. I can honestly say that it is not easy to choose a side. In fact, I'm still on the fence about certain aspects of each argument; however, I have to agree that a stronger Federal Government is the best route. When America was founded, states obviously possessed the majority of power. Throughout history, there has been a shift in this and it has been a positive one for the most part. In no way whatsoever is America where it needs to be in terms of freedom or equality but we have come so far. We are making steps in the right direction. Perhaps a stronger Federal Government isn't the only reason for this, but it's something to be aware of.
ReplyDeleteMany have mentioned the negative aspects surrounding Americans to purchase healthcare, but have failed to mention the good it is doing for our country. I am aware that to require all citizens to purchase something is debatable, but it's not out of the ordinary. Our government requires citizens to do may things, this one just happens to be more controversial. The Affordable Care Act is based on your yearly income, among other things. At the end of the day, is it really such a horrible thing for all Americans to be insured? In my opinion, it's actually a relief. I do not agree with the Federal Government having all the power, but I'm not worried because our basic rights are expressed in the Constitution. As of now, I'm fine with the Federal Government having more power, as long as they do not abuse it by taking it to extremes.
From learning in class, it has been clear that the power has shifted from state to federal power since 1787. I believe that this could be a bad thing. There needs to be a balance between the powers of state and federal government. I agree with the Bloomberg article in fearing that the federal government could end up with too much power and that could hurt independent states. In that article he stated, "states have tougher budget constraints, which discipline spending," which is true. States can afford or do certain things depending on not only money, but their location.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government gaining more power could cause more issues. What the government may think could benefit the entire United States could harm individual states. There are some issues that could be left to the national government for control, but there are other issues that would be better off left for the states. For example, health care, I believe would be better left to the states. There are some issues stated in the other article "The Myth of States' Rights" talks about that different states could abuse their powers on different groups or ideas. This could also cause issues.
In reality, there needs to be a balance of the state and national governments. This would be nearly impossible to accomplish because the national government would want to interfere with things they did not agree with and state governments may not agree with the national government. The power of both governments is a good thing, but depending on what is being discussed, the state may be better off having the power.
I think that the state governments should have more power than the federal government. After reading both articles I found myself siding more with “Federal Mandates are Almost Always a Bad Idea.” When the topic of health care is brought up and someone needing to purchase insurance I see that as not beneficial, when things are forced and not on peoples own terms things never work out well. We live in a country based on freedom and I think your own personal health should be up to you. As said in the constitution, the states should govern themselves, and I still believe that should be the case. While that being said that the states should have a majority of power I don’t think it should be completely unbalanced.
ReplyDeleteStates should be able to do exactly what the articles discussed, making their own moral decisions for their states, regulate budget, because they understand what the state needs and wants.
The discussion over whether the state or federal government should have more power is a question that has been mulled over many times in the past. It can be understood why our founding fathers 200 years ago were weary of a strong federal government, but now that we live in a highly connected world, unifying policy across the states makes practical sense. Since technology has advanced far beyond what our founding fathers could have ever imagined, they could have not dreamed that a luxury such as universal health care could ever be a reality. The Huffington Post article mention how other developed democracies in the world use their federal governments to make improvements in their country as long as they believe them to be beneficial. On the other hand, the United State's Constitution limits this sort of power that could further connect and improve the country. If this power was granted to the United States federal government, the country could further connect the states and improve the lives of citizens.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can understand the fears of certain Americans about a strong central government, their fears are outdated. In the Bloomberg article, the author only references one time in United States history that federal interference resulted in a failure. Granted, there have been other failures of the federal government, but with all new things come trials and tribulations. Programs like medicare and medicate have helped thousands and none of that could have been possible if the states did not give the federal government the power to help. With further practice, the country as a whole could benefit from a strong federal government that would make the pursuit of happiness even easier for every citizen.
I agree with the article “ Federal Mandated are almost always a bad Idea” and I think a balance between state and federal government is needed. Some powers the federal government has are considered too much. The national government and state government need to find a way to work together better. States having more power and control over things seems more logical because the laws they make affect the people living in each state more directly. I think as citizens of the United States, we should be able to choose if we want health insurance or not.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think Americans should be forced into such a serious decision, like healthcare. I believe that the federal government has gained an enormous amount of power, which I don’t think is a good thing. I would like to see a shift in government where states gain more power and more compromises are made.
Elizabeth- I agree with your statement that states should have more say because every state is different and is going to have completely different needs/wants. I looked at this every way and people aren't going to like to be forced into getting health insurance because it is a serious decision, I agree. I think though that sometimes people are irresponsible and do not take care of themselves, and then when they are really sick they are going to be in debt because they did not have health insurance. Either way someone is not going to be pleased, because people want to make their own decisions but then again if something sudden happens and someone was forced to have health insurance they would be appreciative because their bills would not be as expensive.
DeleteLaura Hackbarth
ReplyDeleteOur nation started on the foundation of federalism, a balance between state and federal government. But, through the years this process seems to has become out of balance multiple times, with the federal government taking more power from the states. I personally tend to lean towards the shift to national government power as a negative aspect. The two sides of our government should check each other and without the states being able to have a say they are losing their power to check to power of the federal government.
Also with this trend like mentioned in “Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea” takes away power from the people, “If people don't like a state’s rules, they can always move elsewhere. Local experiments provide the evidence that can leas to real progress”. When national government sets laws and regulations people who disagree with it don't have the advantage of being able to get away from it. I believe a good example is the federal government taking control of the highway speed limits. States should have the right to choose the speed that best works with their roads and the people who live there. Threatening a state to hold back aid if they don't pass a law is wrong. The US was made to be a country of freedom and that includes freedom of choice, when our government takes control of running the country the people lose some of their ability of choice.
Based on my knowledge of this issue, I take the position that power shifting from the states to the national government is a negative trend. A central fear at the time the Constitution was drafted was that the federal government would be given too much power. While society has greatly expanded and developed since the writing of the Constitution, this fear of the federal government intruding too much into the daily lives of Americans is still as much of a concern today as it was when originally.
ReplyDeleteProponents believe that the federal government should exercise the power it feels necessary to implement laws and regulate issues that include concern the welfare, health and well-being of its citizens. As the Friedman article mentions, in the case regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Justice Roberts supports this position by stating, “Rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government's powers which the government cannot exceed" (Friedman, 2013). Justice Roberts includes actions such as healthcare reform within the purview of the federal government.
The issue of marijuana legalization is an area where federal versus states rights presents dispute. The U.S. Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Raich involves a situation where a California woman, who was prescribed marijuana for medical purpose, grew the substance in her backyard. DEA agents discovered her actions, cited her for breaking a federal law, and destroyed her plants. Although her actions were consistent with California state laws, under federal law, her actions were illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the right to regulate her actions, therefore showing court support for a power shift from the states to the federal government.
Although this case ruled in favor of the federal government, Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissenting opinion supports my stance that the shifting of power to the federal government is negative. Her argument states, “this overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently.” In this situation, I agree with O’Connor. In this instance, the federal government overstepped its boundaries and invaded the power and rights of the states. Even though the use of marijuana is not protected under federal law, it is protected in some states, including California. In passing such a law, states do not do so quickly or lightly. Rather, these states have thoroughly reviewed the issue, drafted legislation and considered the needs and opinions of their citizens. Therefore, I do not believe that this woman should have been penalized for practicing rights grated by her state of residency. This is just one example where the federal government has intruded into issues that should be decided at the state level.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD.html
The power in the United States has been shifting between national and federal government and I think there needs to be balance between the two. I think the states and federal government should acquire equal power and support each other because I think whenever you give someone too much power they tend to abuse it. So, in this case I think the states should have their opinion on what they need to do and what needs to be done, but then I think if they abuse the power the federal government should be there to help. For instance, if the states try to abuse their power like they did when they made it almost impossible for African Americans to vote in the south.
ReplyDeleteIn the first article, "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always A Bad Idea" it is expressed that federal government wants to mandate health insurance because it seems reasonable, similar policies could be harmful, and society would be better off. I agree with this is a sense that some people are irresponsible and could never get around to getting health insurance and then when they get sick or something happens to them they have racked up thousands of dollars in hospital bills and they become part of the percentage in the article. I could see why the federal government thinks it would be a good idea to make everyone have health insurance, but this is obviously going to anger people because they do not want to be told what to do and live their life and they think it should be their choice. In another sense when someone does get sick and was forced to get health insurance they are going to be grateful that they do not have such a hefty hospital bill. This goes to show that no one is ever going to be pleased in what happens.
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3c.asp
After taking into consideration what was discussed in the lectures during class and after reading both of the articles, I have decided that in this argument I agree with Edward Glaeser’s side of not allowing the federal government the bulk of the power over the states, which discussed in “Federal Mandates are Almost Always a Bad Idea.” While the government is obviously incredibly different now than it was in 1787, I believe that allowing the federal government to have too much power over its states and people could be a detrimental factor in our nation. The opposing article from Huffington Post added a quote from Justice Scalia where he said that just as the federal government has checks and balances to distribute power among its three branches, state and federal government should do the same and balance the nation’s power among each other as to not allow one to get too much power. This is a great perspective on the argument and I agree with his underlying message of an equal distribution of power. With that being said, I understand that it is nearly impossible to equally balance power between the state and federal governments. But, due to some of the examples that have been presented in class and the points that Glaeser makes in his article, I feel that a shift in power towards state governments would be the better option for this nation.
ReplyDeletePower struggles within the United States constantly resurface time and time again. I can understand why state government would be favorable to a lot of people. Every state has its own needs and differences in some aspect, so every single state might not ever need the same policies/law/etc. that others might desire. My view toward state government is quite simple. State government should be catered to what that specific state needs amongst the community and should essentially benefit them as much as it could. I can also see where national government would be preferred more compared to state government.
ReplyDeleteNational government on paper should be an excellent concept, but we live in an imperfect world, and one voice that governs all states might not always be in everyone's best interest. Even though I feel like state government is probably best for our country as of now, I still feel like national government does offer a great foundation for the country to prosper. However, in my opinion, the only way national government would be able to help our nation prosper would be if the intent behind the government was just and fair. National government could have potential if the ideas that are being dealt with would not create more difficulties for the people within the country. Choosing between state and national is so subjective, and I am sure that most of the time it boils down to being very situational, as to what government would be better.
Healthcare is certainly worthy of its own importance, in my opinion. Ideally it would be fantastic if we could all have free healthcare and not have the stresses of life weighing us down, but I think that having an incentive to have insurance is not a bad idea. As a nation, we are at least pushing our citizens in the (hopefully) right direction, by showing them that healthcare is something we should care about and need to be accountable for. I thought it was very clever what Edward Glaeser said about making people have insurance would force them to care about how their health is doing. That was a great observation regarding the relevance of insurance in this country. I am not sure which government would be better, because I think it really depends on what needs done in the country and if the people in charge will make choices that are collectively beneficial.
After looking at both articles and listening to lectures in class I have to say that I believe that is it better that the control has shifted to the national government instead of the state government. While the states were more in charge they were able to make more biased laws and regulations for themselves which made the nation more divided than it should of been. They could also prohibit voting for certain people in their state if they wanted to which doesn't seem right by any means. I believe that allowing the States to pass laws if they do not break any rules in the Constitution is a good route that we are on. Saying that I agree with the article "The Myth of States' Rights" because it shows that having a national government that has a good amount of power will result in probably better defense from other countries and a better army. He does also agree that it is dangerous to have a strong national government, so in reality having either the States or the national government with all the power is not a good move for anyone. The passing of a lot of the power from the States to the National government since 1787 is a good move for the country as a whole because it makes us a little more unified and not as divided as we were before. There a multiple opinions on both choices of which is better, and no matter what not everyone will be happy. Giving the National government does take away power from the people although the President is "chosen by the people". This is a good and bad thing in my mind because I do not think there are a lot of people in this country that would make a lot of great choices for the nation. The power switching from the States to the National government is a good thing in my opinion, but saying that I think the power placement should stay as it is today.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to State government power and National Government power, it helps to eradicate any paranoia or misconceptions an individual may hold towards either of the two. Keep a level head. The National Government is only able to stretch so far before it it breaks, in this case, the Elastic Clause or the Necessary and Proper clause comes into effect. The powers will either expand or the "rubberband" will break. If a President does something without emotional intelligence or cognitive process that affects the public, then there will be repercussions.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance, it helps to think that moving from state to state is an option. There are always greener pastures if one wakes up to find their life unhappy. Every state is going to have a different way of doing something with some being similar and the others different. If it is corruption that an individual has lack of merit with, then I suppose it depends on the severity of corruption. There is always going to be some in any form of a hierarchy without a doubt. If it is serious questions that one has issue with, then it certainly is only a component of life with government. If the states aren't willing to answer them, then the National Government will, or vice versa.
I understand what you are saying about "greener pastures". But it may help to also think about it in a different way. For example, just because Pennsylvania (my home state) passes a mandate on health care that I don't agree with, doesn't mean that I am willing to just pick up and go somewhere else. My family lives in PA, and I wouldn't be willing to leave them. Consider, also, if I had a stable job and a few kids there. Would I uproot my family and quit my job just because I don't like the health care laws? Probably not.
DeleteI do, however, agree with your opinion about eradicating misconceptions about state and national government. I think too many people will jump on the bandwagon rather than learning about an issue for themselves and forming their own opinion on it.
This issue is one that has been at the forefront in American history since we gained independence from Britain. It is easy to see why as the colonists were trying to break away from what they felt was a repressive and overly powerful government. But in today's advanced society, the issue is quite more complex. In a perfect world, the federal government would have just the right amount of power to do what is necessary, and the state governments would have enough power to keep the national government in check. That is pretty vague. What is the right amount for each? There in lies the problem. Who decides what is best and how? Certainly, we posting on this blog aren't going to solve this issue. It is mostly opinion so it may never be solved.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that the federal government should have more power than the state governments, but obviously not enough power to become unchecked or unbalanced. My reasoning is because of history. America tried a scenario in which the states had the majority of the power (Articles of Confederation), and it failed and became the system we have today. I understand people's concerns over a federal government that has too much power. Who wouldn't? But one without enough could be just as bad, and like I said has already failed in this country before. The article "The Myth of States' Rights" brought up a point I thought was very important. The federal government needs to be able to keep the states in check. During the days of slavery, leading up to the Civil War, the states in the south fought for slavery and seceded under the banner of "states' rights." How could a nation put down such a rebellion with a national government that was not powerful enough to do so? There needs to be an overseeing body to keep the country together.
Lastly, I do agree with a statement made in the "Federal Mandates..." article. The author wrote that leaving an issue such as healthcare up to state governments is beneficial. I think this is a good thing because different states have different demographics. One way of doing things is not good for everyone, especially in such a diverse country. Also, with different states trying different ways to do things like healthcare, the national government can see what is working and what isn't. This is where state government power can come into play and benefit everyone. So the issue truly is finding the correct balance, but that is not an easy thing to do.
While I think that the state and local governments should have more power than they do currently, the entity in control normally stays in control. I wish there was a general consensus that could be reached, but I do not think that is going to happen. As far as Obamacare is concerned, I absolutely disagree with the entire passage. "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea," stated that the annual emergency room visit accounts for $50 billion dollars, and the uninsured accounts for 17 percent of that, around $8.5 billion. That 17 percent is not anywhere near even half of the annual emergency room visits. What does the other $41.5 billion account for? Obviously not the uninsured.
ReplyDeleteWith the federal government having such power, the states continue to fall more and more out of the loop. It is no longer about what is best for each individual state, rather what is best for the people who are running the whole operation at the time. So many things go unseen, leaving us oblivious to what goes on in our nation. As Americans we always want to thrive as one cohesive unit, but not being able to better our states individually in order to reach a general consensus is only holding us back.
“If people don’t like a state’s rules, they can always move elsewhere.” The sentiment is a nice one—give the states more power because they have tougher budget constraints and will therefore discipline their spending. But the author of this articles talks about moving to a different state as if it’s an easy thing to do. News flash: it isn’t. Family, cost of living, job availability, and so much more can change from one state to another, it isn’t easy to just completely uproot and go somewhere else. So the idea that a person can avoid a state’s rules simply if they don’t like them, doesn’t really work in the real world as nicely as it does on paper.
ReplyDeleteLet’s not forget that when Abraham Lincoln was elected, 7 southern states seceded from the union. And after Obama was elected, Texans signed a petition (gaining over 25,000 signatures within 30 days) to secede from the union (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-petition-secede-reaches-threshold-obama-comment/story?id=17701519). States don’t always know what’s best for them and sometimes need that paternalism to keep them on track.
I agree that allowing the federal government to have too much power can be a bad thing. We live in a democracy for a reason. But when there is a balance of power, people tend to forget that the scales can tip every once in a while, but because of the structure of our government, they will probably eventually tip back.
I agree with you Kimberly, it's just ridiculous that states should think this way as the most appropriate solution for its citizens. Moving to another state definitely won't be easy otherwise most people would have avoided it already rather than going through the hassle.
DeleteI also agree. There is certainly a need for a change that involves more balance between state and federal government, but that assumption that people can just move comes off very cavalier and unrealistic.
DeleteAfter reading both the articles, I believe that the power shift from the state and local government to the national government is neither good or bad. Looking at this from the point of a non citizen of the United States, I could understand where both sides stand and I believe that there should be an equal balance between both parties. Although there were plenty of failures demonstrated by the national government, such as the current federal debt at under $18 trillion and the the federal program, Head Start, was created to help low-income students prepare for school, but it has been proven to provide no benefit to students and has been a huge failure. This federal debt is already having an impact on the federal workforce and likely to have more of an impact. Often times, the federal government intervenes with good intentions but those intentions go awry and the result is utter destruction. To quote Milton Friedman, “the tragedy is that because government is doing so many it ought not to be doing, it performs the functions it ought to be performing badly.” If the federal government would just focus on its few central responsibilities and distribute other tasks to the states, then the whole country would run a lot smoother and could avoid bankruptcy
ReplyDeleteFrom the article, "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea", although I have never dealt with any medicare insurance before, but I do disagree that the government should make it mandatory for any citizen to purchase health insurance. They do not understand that the health care is unaffordable for most citizens but yet they want to enforce it. That power should be left to the states to make sure their local citizens are in good hands and I personally think it would be better handled if the states had the power to do it. There are other reasons for mandating health-care coverage. Under the new health-care law, insurance providers can’t charge higher-risk patients significantly higher rates and they can’t deny insurance based on pre-existing conditions. These limitations create the possibility of a “lemons market breakdown,” where healthier people flee the market, leaving only sicker people to get insured. This leads to higher premiums and the continuing exodus of the healthy from the market. I also personally feel that it is reasonable to use tax payers money and spend it on uninsured citizens. Yes, I know it sounds terrible of me to say this, but what about the people who pays for the taxes. How would they feel about it., especially when a huge portion of the money is spent solely on medicare/medicaid and the unemployed. I understand that the US is trying to do good and help their own citizens, but the cost is high and with the wrong money. With about 50 million uninsured Americans, the average uninsured person imposed $170 annually in emergency-room costs, and that would be a reasonable tax to charge people who don’t otherwise have health insurance.
http://www.fedsmith.com/2014/11/08/power-shift-in-congress-what-does-this-mean-for-federal-employees/
http://www.redstate.com/2014/05/15/shift-power-back-states/
http://forcechange.com/23377/shift-more-powers-from-the-federal-to-the-state-level/
The shift of power from the states to the federal government is a good thing. It gives our government the speed it requires to operate successfully and for what is best for the nation as a whole, not just a select state(s). States with enough support however can still overturn decisions made by the federal government.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this allows a much stronger and more unified defense system. This system can also strengthen the relationship of states as they support each other individually when opposed with the federal government. - Shawn Graham
Upon reading about Federalism, I’ve picked up on some positive and negative aspects of Federalism. Some positive aspects in Federalism is that it creates state loyalty, practices pragmatism (what works for each unique aspect of a state), allows for experimentation on the state level with policies, encourages pluralism, and safeguards the separation of powers. A few negative aspects of Federalism include preventing the creation of a national policy, lack of accountability, and some argue that citizens in each state are too ignorant to function on a Federal plane. In terms of a strong national government, some positive aspects include the uniformity of policies, less duplication of services, fewer conflicts between national and local government, and greater unity in terms of policy and law enforcement. Some disadvantages include the central government being out of touch with specific local concerns and being slow in meeting these local problems.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I believe it is best to find a balance in order to bring out the positive aspects of each system while minimizing the bad aspects. While this is an ‘easier said than done’ sort of solution, I believe it is something we as a country should work towards. I believe that states rights should be used to cater to local problems and issues while the national government should provide a sense of balance and regulation of each state.
The power shift from the states to the national government has been great amount sense 1787. Both hold a strong evidence of being independent powers. With this shift, it has helped the states rely on the national government more. It allows the national government to protect all citizens equally for the most part. This includes a cohesion among all the states. It does not allow one super power state to overcome another. The less amount of power in the states means the easier potential in defining the jurisdiction of an area when criminal acts might occur.
ReplyDeleteI truely think the total shirt in power has been mostly beneficial in my opinion. The only instance of it being unbeneficial is allowing to look for the more personal needs certain citizens might encounter in each state. Every state is different and included unique challenges for each resident. But, for the most part I think it has been a positive shift. The shift showed big importance during the separation between the northern and southern states beliefs. After many years, unification occurred between the two. Our country needs to be a unit under one national government, because we all are under one nation.
After reading both articles of the links provided, it is clear that there are positive and negative reasons for each to be supported in different ways. This has been an ongoing dilemma that has always had disagreements and opinions boiling in the U.S. Despite this, since the shift of power in 1787 from the states to the national government, I think that it has been more positive than negative. Like many stated above, it is important to maintain a balance of rights and as long as the best interest of the majority is being chose then I believe it is the right move.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, in the first article " Federal Mandates are Almost Always a Bad Idea" makes the statement that society would be better off if some policies were completely off limits to the federal government. I personally disagree with this. I think the main force fueling this article is the fear of the everyday person that the government will obtain too much power in the future. I can agree with the fact that certain areas must omit to specific problems and laws in their area due to demographics. This is where it can be looked upon as they are being stopped to enforce these beneficial laws by the federal government. In the second article, "The Myth of States Rights", it is stated that there is no valid reason today in limiting the federal government. This is supported in the article through saying that states can pass any law they want as long a it does not violate any provisions of the federal law along with the purpose of the federal government protecting against foreign invasion. I think it is crucial that the federal government be able to keep the states in check, which is a point made in the second article as well. If not, total catastrophe could occur. Aside from these points, I think the healthcare dilemma (state and federal) is one of it's own in regards to whether or not it should be given to each citizen or forced upon them.
Like many of my classmates stated above, it is important to have a balance between both of these arguments and there is really no way for every citizen to be happy with the decision made. However, I think that overall, the power shift over the years has been positive because these regulations are what has gotten us where we are today and have not failed.
After reading the two articles I have to agree with “Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea.” Although a federal government is convenient in terms of national security, they haven’t had the best track record and cant seem to run anything efficiently. I think by having a state run government competition between different healthcare markets or companies located nationwide would have to compete for customers to buy their healthcare, so they will offer discounts, etc. creating a competitive marketplace. Competition in the private market is always good because businesses have to fight for customers to maintain viability.
ReplyDeleteWith everything run federally, the government is using our tax money and therefore no competition is involved. The federal government also seems to be increasing taxes on people for poorly run programs that typically tie to politicians who look out for their own constituents in their own states, not always benefitting the whole country (tax reform at IRS, welfare, food stamps). The Cash for Clunkers program is a recent example of outright financial failure; attempting to boost the economy, create jobs and reduce emissions, it did vey little to improve the environment. It was a $2.85 billion program that created such a small boost of employment that could have been done easily through other financial programs.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/03/cash-for-clunkers-program-falls-short-goals-to-help-economy-environment/
I also think more people would be satisfied if states were in control of healthcare, marriage, etc. because every state has varying needs. If you were unsatisfied with healthcare in one state, you could move to another.
After reading the articles, I believe that the power should be more in states hands than in the national governments' hands. Each state is very unique in today's world and some law would be more relevent in some states than others. Each state faces their own problems, whether it comes to schools in each state, the enviroment, or just the economic problems that arise all the time. Passing one law over the whole country is not necessary when you can give power to the states and let them decide what's good for their individual state. An example of bad national laws would be the civil rights laws, that directly violated African American's rights. A lot of changed since these laws were made, so maybe its time for a change in these laws.
ReplyDeleteI believe that by shifting the power from the states to the federal government we are hurting this country as a whole. With all 50 states having their own set of government officials that are natives of that state, and know what truly is in the best interest of that state, its hard to believe that the federal government can create laws that can better everyone all together. In the article "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea" it shows that the federal government has not always made the correct choices when they were in a position to control exactly how individuals acted.In the Wickard v Filburn case the federal government was ruled that they are able to fine an individual a certain amount if they are deemed to have not followed agricultural quotas. At this point it is just ridiculous how much the federal government is reaching into our pockets. Our freedoms are dwindling and the peoples interest has quickly been replaced with their own interest.
ReplyDeleteAfter having a look at both articles, I believe that the state & local governments should have more control over their residents and what occurs in their state, than what they currently do. If the state & local government are the ones that are going to interact with them on a more regular basis than the national government, it's only fair that they get more power to choose what passes and what has the best interest for their residents. European nations such as Germany, France, and England's national government's can pass any laws, within reason, that do not violate any constitutional or treaty provision. The reason they have no issues doing so is because their populations are way smaller than ours, meaning there are less people that will be effected and less people for the government to worry about. Now, should there be an incident or time where the state government completely steps out of line, then it is job of the national government to intervene and makes sure everything stay in check. Should the state governments fail to do their jobs, then it is the job of the national government to step in, and in the process penalize the government of that state for not maintaining their responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteAlthough health insurance is important, I don't think that it is something that should be forced upon individuals. In other words, if they don't want it, then they shouldn't be forced to get it. One thing they should keep in mind when deciding is that, should something occur to them and they have to be rushed to the hospital, they would have to pay the full price out of their own pocket, which most average americans don't have the financial strength to do. Which is where the affordable care act comes into play. The affordable care act would not only help those individuals that are in weak financial state, it would also help smaller businesses that are on the rise and trying to expand, but can't because some of their employers wouldn't be able to work without health insurance.
The power between the state and national governments of the United States has shifted since their creation. The national government for example has a national board of education that creates regulations that must be followed for a state to receive funding for schools. The states and people according the constitution have control over education since it was not mentioned in the constitution in accordance with the tenth amendment. The federal government has found essentially used funding to black mail the states into following legislation that has no constitutional grounds. The power of the national government has also recently grown for instance by taking control of the health care market. I do not agree with the national government growing and infringing on the ability of the private sector to function. "Federal Mandates Are Almost Always a Bad Idea", the article noted that people were being forced to purchase health insurance which I also do not agree with it, they are forcing people to purchase something they did not have because they could not afford it. Then if you fail to comply with this regulation you suffer a fine which you most likely also cannot afford. I believe that health insurance would be better left to the freemarket, with a few federal regulations, and medicare state options available or poorer Americans. Though a perk to this legislation is it forbade higher risk patients to pay substantially higher fees for insurance, but this is only a perk for the people, not the company who has to eat the coast of such federal mandates. Insurance companies though do not often eat these costs they pass them on to the individuals via higher average premiums for those of us who are healthy as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the power between the federal government and the states should be balanced. The federal government cannot possibly pass a law that will equally benefit all 50 states. Each state is different and operate according their own demographic. At the same time, the states shouldn't have TOO much power. States should be able to have their own laws as long as they don't violate federal provisions.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that the federal mandate on healthcare is actually a good thing. I can say that because I've seen it first hand benefit my family. About 10 years ago, my mother was diagnosed with Lupus. She couldn't get health insurance due to her pre-exsiting condition, so she was paying for her meds out of pocket. It affected our family so much, we didn't have money for anything BUT my mother's medication. Through ObamaCare she was able to be covered and her medical expenses dwindled by a long shot. As long as it can equally benefit everyone, i think the federal government should be able to pass laws.
I agree with your point about balancing power, it's so important that one doesn't have more control than the other. A lot of people argue that if you don't like a certain state's laws then you can just move, but what good does that do for the country as a whole? Certain issues should definitely be left to state regulation because it deals more directly with individual people, but issues such as health care, as you mentioned, that affect the entirety of our population should be left up to trusted politicians in our federal government.
DeleteIt was interesting to read the opposing opinions of two scholars who are both professors at prestigious universities. Having the issue discussed from the thoughts of notable men puts weight on both sides of the scale. At first, I went into reading the articles with a biased opinion that having more more power in the federal government is a bad thing for our country - especially economically, but Friedman brought up some interesting points that challenged that view such as the state power bringing about dark decisions like slavery in our nation's history. That's why there needs to be a balance between the two.
ReplyDeleteAs Scott Gaylord, Professor of Law at Elon University School of law brought up in his article in the New York Times, James Madison envisioned in his work Federalist No. 51, “the power surrendered by the people” would be “divided between two distinct governments,” creating a balance of power that would enable the “different governments [to] control each other.” This is very important to consider when deciding an opinion on the idea of who should hold "more" power in the government. Neither the state, nor the federal government should have more power over the other, but rather work together in harmony.
Because of so many opposing views on current issues in our country such as health care and civil rights, and the many points my classmates brought up in their posts, it's hard for citizens and politicians to reach that point of correspondence and that's why our country seems to be struggling. I think if the focus went back to the way Madison imagined, our nation would be much better off.
Cited:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/states-need-more-control-over-the-federal-government
In my opinion, I find that if there cannot be an equal balance of power, then it is better to allow the federal government to have the majority. I do believe that states’ rights are important but it is also vital to keep our undivided nation undivided. Militarily, this is an extremely important aspect of the states vs. federal government. Our defense is important and I think state governments should consider that. I agree with many of the other bloggers that a balance of power between and state and federal governments is ideal, but realistically it is unlikely and would be very difficult to implicate at this point. I think that states will continue to have minimal power, and the problem thus lies within the relationship between state and federal governments.
ReplyDeleteHealthcare is another issue that in my opinion should be left to the federal government. Because healthcare is such a controversial issue right now in the United States, a lot people feel very strongly about The Affordable Care Act on one end of the issue or the other. I feel that incentivized healthcare is a really good idea, but unfortunately it is not possible for everyone in the United States. I think there would be an advantage to leaving the requirements up to state governments, as different states have different needs and economic status within the population. Unfortunately, I am not sure state governments would ever have the financial means or resources to do this. I think it is essential that this issue remain left to the Federal government because total reform from federal to state would be very time consuming and it may even be impossible. I see both sides, but I would say I agree with both of the articles in that I feel that there are positive and negatives aspects to each side of the debate, but essentially I think that the shift toward federal power is a good thing (and inevitable) and I believe the concept of The Affordable Care Act is a good one.
The foundation of the United States government is irrefutable. The Constitution specifically lays out a separation of power between the states and federal government with a system of checks and balances so that neither has too large of a source of power. The system on paper works, however, we've seen throughout history that there are still some discrepancies. The two articles given mentioned the affordable care act (Obamacare) with two completely opposite opinions on the subject.
ReplyDeleteI interpret the constitution, in this case, as a guide and not a text book. It is easy to agree with the first article in that the government has no right to control markets, however the second article made a great point and gave example of how the federal government has stepped in throughout history to create legislation to help the citizen. I also liked the point in which the second article said that the worry about the "tyrannical federal government" is a worry from over 200 years ago. Obamacare, specifically, shouldn't be an issue of who has more control, rather, it should be an issue to help make the live of those that the government works for (citizens) more efficient and equal. Our country was founded on these principles. In other words, I agree with the federal government mandating health insurance, but I disagree on the mode in which the federal government has created. In my own opinion, I believe that the government has the power to mandate health insurance, while the states provide several insurance options for citizens to pay into. There should be no argument over who should get more power because the Constitution, like I said, has a system of checks and balances to make sure that powered is shared and that neither governmental entity has too much power.
I think that having a strong federal government is good for the U.S. but as pointed out in The Myth of States Rights the states thrive in a stronger national government. The amendendments made to the constitution and the court cases increased the power the the national governent had been accumulating. Which inevitably is important as the number of states and the importance has increased over the years.
ReplyDeleteFederalists and anti federalists have been butting heads since the beginning of time and I think that conforming too much to the federal system would be going back to what we're trying to get away from when we started out government. However, the results of the states answering to a higher power keeps their freedoms in check. I don't think that riding the states of their internal government because all the states, and their people, are different and need to be dealt with differently than the rest of the country. The states still have enough power over the people who live there to maintain a stable environment. However, I do think that if the national government continues this steady increase in power, taking away from the state government power, it could eventually be detrimental to the system.
I dont think that the issue is as much eliminating the states internal governmental structures as it is curbing the reach of the federal system. Theres plenty of concern of the states assigned "territory" areas of what they can and cannot police, but as our antifederalist article author pointed out, its the fear and distrust of the federal system and giving it too much power that fuels these debates.
DeleteAfter reading both the articles, I agree with everyone that had said there should be a balance between the federal government and the state government. The article "Federal Mandates Are Always a Bad Idea," had many strong statements I concurred with. Such as, "There are many reasons to leave control over markets, such as health care, to state governments. States have tougher budget constraints, which discipline spending. States can adapt to local tastes, so Massachusetts can have more intervention than Texas. If people don’t like a state’s rules, they can always move elsewhere. Local experiments provide the evidence that can lead to real progress." That being said, the state government should be more liable for themselves. The federal government should only be there to watch over the states if any major problems occur that they cannot handle. Every state is different and every state has their own predicament, federal government does not focus solely on each states issues. That is why having the state government mainly being responsible for themselves is better, because they can really focus on their issues.
ReplyDeleteBased on personal beliefs and the two articles, I personally believe that states should have more of the focus when it comes to power. Before anyone jumps on this, I would just like to say that it comes down to specifics. There are some states that work better with certain laws than others do. I think there should be a balance between what the national government can do and what the states can do, but having states have more control just makes more sense to me.
ReplyDeleteThere are certain things that only effect certain states. They're small things that have to do with very specific situations. Things work differently in each state, and to make broad generalizations like the national government has to do can't account for every person in every state. Again, this is a situation by situation basis. I think that major issues should be a collaboration of both state and national government, but for most things, I believe that the states should have a say. This makes it easier on everyone to fix specific issues, instead of having the entire country generalized into one or two verdicts.
Again, just my opinion. I see both sides of the issue and there are points on each side that I agree with. This is just the way I lean on this specific issue.
I definitely agree with what you said about broad generalizations and states having more power. I think that with an increase in power, state governments could have a positive impact on certain issues, but there are some issues that I think have to be dealt with nationally. I think drawing the line and figuring out the division of power in that regard is ultimately what is difficult.
DeleteThe ongoing tug-of-war battle between states rights and national rights has been around since the founding of our nation, and I’m sure it will not be ending any time soon. The article “The Myth of States Rights” attempts to unveil an old, decrepit system that no longer has relevance to today’s society. This is in no way the case, however, because the Constitution has been amended throughout the past centuries, and new laws have been introduced to the system that keep it up to date. As we learned in class, the states started out with the majority power through the Articles of Confederation, and as we all know, that did not work out too well. Instead of looking at the Constitution as an old piece of legislation, we should rather consider the fact that it has withstood the test of time. Think about it. That document has lasted through slavery, the Industrial Revolution, the Civil War, two world wars, the women’s and civil rights movements, and much more. Most governing documents wouldn’t make it through half of those events without being radically changed.
ReplyDeleteNow for the power struggle. As the United States has shifted from heavily state-controlled to nationally controlled power, it has (in my opinion) grown stronger and more stable. As stated in the Bloomberg View article, “If people don’t like a state’s rules, they can always move elsewhere. Local experiments provide the evidence that can lead to real progress.” This is the best statement made in the entire report. Since the states take whatever power isn’t given to the federal government, they have some leniency with how they approach schooling, taxes, and other common laws. The federal government simply gives them a template to insure they don’t get too wacky. This works well, because if someone lives in a state that doesn’t teach what he or she wants it to teach, they can leave. Simple as that. If their choice of statehood is unchangeable, they also have the ability to influence their neighbors and the local governments. The people have power too, especially in the right to vote, so the whole ‘checks and balances’ thing works out tremendously well in the end. Of course it may be hard to fight a federal law with only one person, but it should be difficult, because if every person were able to talk to President Obama, he would get nothing accomplished.
As Mr. Ben Brown stated in his blog post, everyone has his or her own perspective. Everyone is against some form of government, whether it is communism, socialism, anarchism, or even corrupt democracy. I also agree with his statement that the national government keeps us unified. If the states had too much power, nothing would be organized, and we would be right back to where we started before the Constitution.
In the end, we live in America. The system may not be perfect, but it is still working after hundreds of years, and I don’t see it failing any time soon. With the majority power lying in the national government, we can stay together and have the freedom to work on more ethical issues like the ones presently in Congress. If we stay on the same path, I have no doubt that we will be just fine, because as the founding fathers intended, if either government gains too much power, we can change the laws, and kick all of the wrong people out of there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlec, I would have to agree with you that we have grown stronger as a result of the shift in power towards the federal government. However, that now gives Americans the ability to have one person(s) to point a finger at when things go wrong, the FEDERAL government. A lot of people in our society seem to have such negative outlooks towards our government as a whole that is it hard to 'trust" what they wish to do. That would be the only real critique I have on the matter.
DeleteI believe that the shift of power from state to federal government is a good and a bad thing. I think that if the states had more power than they did right now things would be very different. Instead of having certain laws that applied to all states, laws like the legal drinking age would very from state to state making it easier for underage people to go to the next state over and find alcohol. Or for a more modern example, the whole legalizing weed situation is currently up to the states to decide, but by one state legalizing it, it makes it easier for people to obtain weed in other states. So having a federal government that is powerful enough to keep certain laws from state to state the same is in the nations best interest.
ReplyDeleteBut on the flip side because the federal government is getting stronger, laws like Obamacare and no child left behind do not help the state or its inhabitants. Because many states try to make the standards that are set by no child left behind, students are only being taught what is needed to know in order to pass the standardized tests and it does not help them in the long run when they are in college. The other thing is taxes. Since the federal government demands a certain amount from each state, states have to make cuts to things like education, and welfare in order to save money, which only makes it more competitive when states apply for grants.
So in the long run there are both ups and downs to having a stronger state government or a stronger federal government. although, at the same time it would be best if the federal government does not get only more powerful because if the strength of the federal government increases states will loose most of their say in the laws that will be passed and possibly imposed on them. It would be nice If the power could be shared equally among the state and federal governments, but we know that that will never happen.
I take a more moderate position regarding federalism than the two articles assigned, especially in the case of the latter article. Justices Roberts' opinion regarding the abilities of the states versus the federal government make sense from a practical standpoint. An entity that is able to police fifty individual entities with varying differences between them should be more stringently protected against an abuse than an individual body that is more in touch and sympathetic to its needs.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the pro states rights article is more concerned with the affordable care act than the federal and state power struggle. The author outlines great benefits of the plan, such as the ways in which it reduces the possibility of a lemon market and eases the burden of the uninsured making emergency room treatment be lumped by hospitals around the country. However, his next section moves on from outlining the positive aspects of the bill and segueys into a complete rejection of it on the grounds that it would be federalist and "controlling". The author himself states that controlling behavior is bad, but admits in the previous line that he would be OK with the same controlling behavior as long as it was done by the state and not the federal government. Overall I feel like he comes off as somebody who is injecting feelings about the affordable care act into an old debate to foster support for anti-federalism.
My personal feelings on federalism are that it is OK and even welcomed in moderation for key issues that greatly impact everyday American life. That absolutely sounds really vague, but it is hard to encapsule everything that I feel should fly under the feds versus what I think the states should have a hand in. Healthcare is absolutely something that I believe the federal government will prove it is able to streamline and improve through mandates such as those under the ACA.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that the shift in power from the states to the national government, on the whole, has been a good trend. I feel this way for a few reasons, but primarily due to our country's needs for a strong, centralized political system and a federal military. In my opinion, the weaknesses demonstrated by the Articles of Confederation, such as the lack of ability to tax or enforce laws on a national level, sufficiently showed our need for a more unified body of government. As for our need for a national military, I believe that it almost speaks for itself. Without having a strong federal military, both the individual states and the nation as a whole would be left much more vulnerable to any potential attacks.
ReplyDeleteChris,
DeleteI agree with you on your thoughts. I feel as if our country needs to tend for as a whole on the big things. We need the strongest system possible. I am still slightly on the fence about everything, but you make some very good points on the topic.
After reading the two articles, and talking in class, I am very indifferent on the topic of hand. The power for both state and national governments on having less or more can be a bad and good thing. I feel as if there should be some sort of balance between the two and their powers. However, with reading the two articles and reading examples, I feel like that it is better as a whole of the United States that the national government has more power.
ReplyDeleteAs the States should have control of their own laws to move smoothly, the national government should have more power over the huge situations at hand. They can see what is best as a whole for everyone, and it would be fairer. In the Huffington Post article post, the author made a very good point, “In practice, the assertion of states' rights really means resistance to progressive federal laws designed to alleviate the inequality in our society. We must look more closely at the real reason why States rights are asserted to block action by the federal government.” But on the other hand, both powers have done some positive things for the United States. For example, with the States’ rights, it ended slavery (as explained in the Huffington Post Article). I just feel like this is such a controversial topic, because both points made are very good, that it could be either way a good or bad thing that either the States or national government has more or less powers.
It is clear to see that the Federal government has started to get more power. As some of my classmates have observed themselves, it can be hard to keep consistent laws if it is simply from state to state. If a person is passionate about a certain law in a state, they can simply move to that state. Also, if you are traveling, there may be confusion based on state by state laws. If the drinking age is different in every since state, if could be hard to keep track and this may be problematic.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion, federal laws are more clear cut. Every state follows them, and that makes it easy for the average American. On the other hand, less federal government involvement in general would be idea for me. It is not the place of the state government or federal to tell someone they NEED to have health issuance. The federal government can certainly make it available and affordable for those who wish to have it and seek out that option for themselves, though. Having access to health care can be life changing for some people, however it may not make a difference to others. These people should not have to have it, but the option should be out there!
After reading the two articles there is a distinct key term that keeps ringing in my head and that is, cooperative federalism. Cooperative federalism is what makes America so wonderfully unique and innovative. It combines the two powers of a strong national government, while still giving a sufficient amount of power to the states. Although cooperative federalism is an ideal concept, it is very hard to implement. There are no clear defined lines laid out for federal and state powers. The issue of National Health Insurance has become a serious issue in our nation. In the article "Federal Mandates are Almost Always a Bad Idea", it was stated that nearly $8.5 billion is spent on the uninsured. This statistic proves that health insurance is absolutely a problem in our nation and must be solved.
ReplyDeleteAlthough "Myth of States Rights" presents several convincing points that the national government should be left in charge of implementing healthcare, I do believe that it is a power that should held within the states. "Myth of States Rights" identifies points in history where state power has led to oppression of citizens, specifically during the time of slavery. Despite the fact that slavery was an issue that the states helped to progress, the National government has also enforced policies that have interfered with the choices of citizens that have ultimately failed. The example given in "Federal Mandates are Also a Bad Idea" is The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 where "wheat quotas for farmers to drive up prices in the Great Depression". Another example that comes to mind is the Prohibition era. Americans were denied the right to purchase, store and sell alcohol. This policy implemented by the national government, failed because it denied citizens their natural rights. Any right to purchase should not be policy given by the National Government. I believe that forcing citizens to purchase National Healthcare is not something that should be regulated by the national government. Healthcare should be something that is regulated by states, that is fit to their own economy and taxing system. Concerns with health are primarily a states power and the National Government should not interfere.
While I agree that every state should be able to set forth mandates for the benefit of its residents, I also believe national mandates and laws are vital to create a “more perfect union.” National mandates create a sense of unity and equality for the entire country. After reading the two articles, and taking into consideration what we have discussed in class thus far, I agree more with the Huffington Post blog. One of the main discussion points in that article was that of desegregation in schools and the resistance from the southern states. How can we say we have a “united” nation if a large portion of the country is against desegregation—something set forth through a national mandate for the benefit of the entire nation?
ReplyDeleteIf states were still granted more power over the national government, there would be constant battle over statewide policies. As we are seeing currently, some states have legalized gay marriage and some have not. States and their gay residents are faced with a conflict—move to a state where marriage of two people is legal for all, or stay in their home state and be unable to marry the person they love. Now, the national government—in this case, the Supreme Court—must step into to resolve this debate. Once the Supreme Court comes to a decision, there will no longer be this big decision to make for couples seeking legal marriage. They will be able to stay in their home state or state of residence, and be able to legally marry. Also, in the case of health insurance discussed in the Bloomberg article, if one state has incredible health insurance coverage, or no taxes for those who do not wish to obtain health insurance, other states will suffer. People would more than likely wish to move to the state with the better health insurance and lowest tax rate for those without insurance. With the national mandate, it sets a level of equality for all states and all those with or without health insurance.
Since 1787, the shift in power from state to national has made the Unites States the most powerful country in the world. Things have changed because they were not working before. Personally, I think it would be unreasonable to try to change the current set of national mandates overpowering state mandates. Inevitably, there will be times where state governments will not be able to handle a situation in which they find themselves. In those instances, states will need to turn to the national government for advice, a solution, or a way to make their situation work among the other states.
There is no question in my mind that we have transitioned to more of a national federal government rather than more of a state government. Not necessarily a good thing nor is it necessarily a bad thing either. Benefits from have a more national government are having laws and policies that apply to all states rather than some follow or some others don't. Underage drinking laws or legalization of drugs are probably the best examples of what I'm talking about.
ReplyDeleteHowever, some argue that having more of a national government can be more of an issue when it comes to certain laws or policies. Obamacare is a great example. Obamacare is a policy that is divided in our population's eye. Some states probably love the idea of Obamacare, as we all know, many states do not. Have more of a state government could beneficial when it comes to situations like Obamacare.
In all, I still believe we are more of a national government rather than a state. Not necessarily a bad thing, however, you can make plenty of arguments why it can be a problem
Personally, I believe that the federal government should have more power than the states but no matter what viewpoint you have on this issue it will always be highly opinionated for several reasons. The main theme I seem to be reading is that people should be able to determine whether or not they want their own healthcare and that the PPACA is an abuse of power for the federal government. First, I do nit believe the PPACA is an abuse of power. People have argued that one should be able to pick if they want insurance and so on. Currently the USA doesn't rank in the top 25 for health care systems around the world, but these same people still do not want to change our system. Countries that run on a universal system, which forces citizens to have health insurance like Obamacare, typically rank high in efficiency. Though Obamacare and a universal system have its differences, the comparison is there to be made. According to an article I read on my own, state governments time and time again attempt to undermine decisions the federal government has made. The example I'm referring to comes from a New York Times article claiming that current Republican officials are trying to set new restrictions that would tamper with the Roe v. Wade court case. This is where one's decision can be highly opinionated because personally, I'm all for abortion while other may be completely against it. I do not feel that state governments should hold the right to make a decision about this topic, for it's already been discussed in a federal court. There is no need to change the way now. I've also read that states should be able to determine their own economic practices, which I too do not believe. We've read in the articles provided that states have abused this right in the past with examples like slavery and monopolies. Slavery was allowed in the first half of the 1800's because it was decided at a state level. Clearly, people now realize that the federal government should've made this decision. Another example is the regarding the Sherman anti-trust act. State's abused their powers in allowing big businesses to create and run monopolies. Both of these examples are legitimate reasons as to why the states shouldn't be able to control their economies fully. Lastly, I want to bring up yet another controversial issue, that being the use of capital punishment. Certain states have banned the death penalty while others still use it to this day. "Death By Fire" is a FRONTLINE episode that touches on a case where a man was executed in the state of Texas for burning down his house and in the act murdering his three daughters. Later it was discovered that the man was innocent the whole time but, when they came to this conclusion he had already been executed. Banning the death penalty on the state level needs to be done soon and left solely in the hands of the Supreme Court. All in all there is certainly many arguments one can have for either side of this debate
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/16/state-politics-vs-the-federal-government/federal-government-is-more-powerful-than-state-government
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/
Since 1787, there has been a huge shift in power from the states to the federal government. Based on the readings, lecture notes and my own opinions, I believe that there should be a balance of power between the states and federal government. Too much power is always a bad thing and can result in doing more harm than good. As stated in the article, “The Myth of States’ Rights,” “Justice Scalia continues to insist that limiting federal power and allowing the States to offset and control the federal government is necessary to protect our liberty.” I strongly disagree with this. I do not think that the states should hold the power to control the federal government. If this were the case, the states would have to make important decisions that could potentially affect the whole country, not just their own citizens.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the federal government holding all of the power, this is something that I believe should be reevaluated. Each state is more than capable of passing laws and using funds for what they see fit. Each state has its own needs and every state is different when it comes to this. As explained in the article, “Federal Mandates are Almost Always a Bad Idea,” “There are many reasons to leave control over markets, such as health care, to state governments.” I definitely agree with this. Health care mandates as a federal government decision does not take into account the needs of the separate states. I strongly agree with ObamaCare and think that every American citizen should have the right to healthcare even if he or she cannot afford it. That being said, I think that each state should decide how much is spent on healthcare.
I believe that the shift from the states having more power to the federal government having more power has had a positive impact on our society. In my opinion, the federal government should have a little more power than the states. It is the federal governments job to protect its citizens, and enforce their basic rights. The federal government also helps the states with their funding, so they should be able to have some say as to how the money is used, like how they do with certain grants. The states shouldn't be able to decide what happens with every issue they come across; however, there are some issues/concerns that the states should be able to make their own decisions on. Issues vary from state to state, so some issues will be important in one state, but not in another. Citizens should have the decision of whether or not to buy health insurance. It is a great idea for everyone to have health insurance, but if a person cannot afford to buy it in the first place, forcing someone to buy it isn't going to help the situation much.
ReplyDelete