State vs Federal Government

What is Government? Any why do we have both a State and Federal Government?

Simple question with a very complex answer. Your answer depends on your definition of Government and what political view point you come from. Take a look at the difference between a Socialist, a Communist, a Libertarian, or a Capitalist.

When our Founding Fathers setup our Country, they were coming out of a Monarchy. So they wanted to make certain that the structure they setup was decentralized. This was key. You can see this by how much power they gave the States. Remember we are the "United States of America". The key word there being States. Their original intention was that each state would be a fairly autonomous unit. If the Federal government collapsed for some reason, then the states would be in a position to carry on without issue. This is very different from how most European governments are setup. Most of those have highly centralized governments.

So lets take a quick vocabulary lesson:

Federalism - Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national & state governments

The Constitution codified this by make certain statements over what the Federal Government was suppose to handle, then saying that everything else goes to the states. They accomplished this through the 10th Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

That is very powerful! Their goal was very clear, to make the states strong. They did not intend for the Federal Government to be the lynch pin of the country. Now, can you name your State representative? Most people probably can not. The reason I believe this is the case is because so much power has been shifted from the states to the Federal government.

Take a look at this great article detailing this out: Federalism: National vs. State Government

If this was the case, then why are we moving more and more towards a centralized Government? Because we have forgotten about history.

So lets take a look at some contentious issues and (In my opinion) why the states should handle these.

1) Education -- Why do we have a "Department of Education" at the federal level? Why is it that the bureaucrats in Washington are directing via dollars how our local schools work? This is a state issue, and should remain that way. So the question will arise? What if California and Georgia have different standards? Well then so be it. My guess would be that they would not be too different because of external forces (colleges, parents, etc), but the States should be in charge of their individual school systems. If a state wants to pass a law saying that kids have to go to school until they are 25, then so be it, but what will happen is that people will move out of that state. In other words, let the folks close to the people decided on the setup not some Politician in Washington. And that goes for the money as well. That department should be removed, and the taxes that were collected should cease to be collected. The biggest example of this is the No Child Left Behind. If Georgia wants to pass this individually, then so be it, but it should not be a National standard.

2) Drug Use -- Once again, states should be able to individually manage drugs in their state. Let me say that I am against drug use in a very passionate way, but still States should be able to decided this. In the same way that States should decide about education, if a state wants to legalized Drug use then let them, but if Crime increases, and it is shown to be a negative on society, then people will move out of state, and leaving that state with a lower tax base. One argument to this is that people will drive over state lines to buy drugs. My answer is Don't they do this now? Don't people drive out of dry counties to buy alcohol on Sunday? I don't think this problem is any different if the Federal Government decides or if States decided. Feel free to disagree.

(On a side note, do you ever wonder why the Federal Government passed an Amendment to the Constitution to allow Prohibition? The answer is very interesting. It is because, the Congress at the time understood that they did not posses the legal standing to regulate Alcohol sales which was a state issue, so they added an Amendment. Some some argue that this same reasoning applies to the current War on Drugs. That basically it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to have laws regulating drug use because it is a State issue. Some food for thought).

3) Prostitution -- To the best of my knowledge this is not a Federal issue right now. The states control whether prostitution is legal or not. Look at Nevada. I am personally against prostitution, but once again, this needs to stay at the state level.

4) Medicare & Medicaid -- Once again, I think that this should be at the state level. This one is a bit more complicated, but in short, if Georgia wants to setup a social safety net system, then so be it, but it should not require Alabama to help pay for it. So in the same vein of competition between the states, if Georgia sets this up, it could draw people into the state or it could cause people to leave the state, but that is the risk/reward that that individual state takes.

5) Drinking Age -- For those over a certain age, you know the history of this, but in short, for many years, the States set the drinking age. The Federal Government did not have the legal standing to force this standard, so what they did was to withhold Federal Road funding. So once again, this is the Federal Government overstepping their boundaries, without the standing to do so. (BTW, most of the world is around 18. Here wikipedia page detailing this.)

6) Marriage -- If other states want to allow gay marriage then so be it, but Georgia should not be force to recognize the marriages from other states. Why is it again that we have to go to the state to get married? I thought that marriage was a religious institution. But just my opinion.

In short the Federal Government should stick to what the Founding Fathers intended it to do, as spelled out in the Constitution. Anything beyond that should be carefully considered, and they probably rejected. In short, leave it to the states. If California wants to shift to more of a socialist type government then so be it. As long as their decisions do not directly impact the citizens of Georgia, and vice versa. Why is it that people get all upset about a Court ruling in another area of the country? Because we are becoming to tightly bound to each other. The states need more latitude to make the best decisions for their own citizens.

If you disagree with me on any of the points above, I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to post a named or anonymous comment below.

Now for the obligatory propaganda:

So when choosing the next president, if you feel strongly about the fact that the states are loosing their power to the central government, then you should pick a candidate that has show the strongest record for supporting states rights. That candidate is by far Ron Paul.