Should we go toward more of an emphasis on state's rights versus federal control?
109054
It depends on what issues you are talking about. For example, the "No child left behind" act is a Federal program (in theory it is meant to help improve education in this country) but the Governemt is only telling the state what to do and what standard to meet. The Federal Goverment needs to back that up with Federal money and not just enforce the rules it made up.\n\nIf you could define the issues/programs/concerns that a State should control VS. Federal Control your question could be answered more effectively
149783
Inaddition to slavery, \nEconomic influences (tarrifs, taxes, ...) and also the idea of states rights (who help more power, state or federal government).
475598
Because the Constitution was set up that way. Certain powers are delegated to the federal government while others are delegated to the state or local governments. While states cannot go against the constitution (such as the bill of rights), they have great latitude in making laws tailored to their state.\n\nSome would say the fact that each state is different is a strength- people in Maine, California, Michigan, and Alabama all have different values. Why should they have the same laws ?
188978
I think each State should take care of thier own property.  As far as leasing it to a foreign Country!!! NO!!!  It is our land, we take care of it ourselves!!!!  States should spend what money they do get from us and the Federal Government to take care of themselves instead of Blowing it!
797688
A. of course.\n\nNot to mention the fact that state constitutions cannot override the federal constitution and they are binding only to the state they're written in.  The best they can do is expand the rights of its citizens and protect their interests.
546447
The US Constituion say no but not only that it is one of those unalienabel rights that have been endowed by our creator.  The hand of big government can slap anyone so I say challenge the cult of the omnipotent state.\n\nIn Liberty,\nEric H. Smith
133942
I am going to leave this question open ended.  I was going to say that what makes this country so great is that it enables us the ability to speak up and tell our elected officials what is wrong and that something needs to be fixed.  However I can see a minor encroachment on our civil liberties when it comes to our National Security.  I do not believe that any of our rights should be take away, but I believe that we live in different times now.  It is sort of an unfortunate thing.
751140
Why can't you be both, obviously there is a need for Federal legislation on issues like equality, workplace safety, air traffic etc. There is also the need for States rights to reflect the values of the people who reside in them,  I'm sure people in Idaho disagree with people in Clifornia on more than a few issues foe example. That said State & Federal laws can and do come into conflict like California's medical marijuana initiative VS, Federal drug law enforcement but all in all both are needed in a democracy
920221
Safer?  Why that emphasis?  Why not better more generally?\n\nWhat politics I would adopt would be based on the premise that we can fit government back inside the Constitution.  And most specifically, that the Tenth Amendment implies that much of what has grown up as federal bureaucracy either ought not exist at all or ought to be done by the states individually.  \n\nIn many cases, small local programs are swallowed up in the glare of federal funding.  No, the feds don't literally control the program, but they control the funding, and that controls the program to a remarkable degree.  Move that to the state level would be an improvement.  What the states do with it is up to them.  Move as much as possible to the county level, we would hope.\n\nBut the Tenth Amendment also comes right after the first nine that spell out some pretty wide areas of rights of the individual in this country, and we need to remember that the rest was left to the states or "to the people."  That is, not the business of legislation or regulation at all, but of individual decisions.\n\nSo if I was the president, I would institute a policy of Constitutional Law Reform:  fit the country back inside the Constitution.  Streamline the process for challenge of new laws based on Constitutional grounds, and use Constitutional research as standard procedure in the congress when new laws are written.\n\nMake sure people understand that we are dedicated to living within the rules of the country we set down in writing, a sacred contract with ourselves and our posterity.
65555
Federal government control vs. state's rights.  The North wanted a stronger federal government control, and the Southern states wanted to make their own laws.  Slavery was just one issue.
454103
Common misunderstanding, but laudable that you are asking, because it is theonly way we can become self-governed again. \n\nThe U.S. Constitution only grants one right. The fist 10 Amendments, added twelve years later, are called "The Bill of Rights," and are probably what you're thinking of.\n\nA "right" is something granted by law, something you can take to court and win. A privilege, can be taken away at any time at the whim of those few in power.\n\nLike someone in the military has almost no rights. But they have lots of privileges. An underage child has no rights, but has privileges. \n\nThe one test to find out if you have a right, e.g., the case of a child, is to find out if this person or entity can sue or be sued. If not, then there are no rights. \n\nRead the Constitution on my web site listed below, then read the explanation of the Amendments. You'll find that the one main reason for the Constitution was to set up a Federal Gov't, and at the same time, limit their power. Their greatest fear was that the Fed would become more powerful than a State, and rule the States from afar and dictate their laws, and invade our states at will. But of course, that has happened anyway hasn't it, because nobody is policing the police (the Fed) or enforcing the Constitution.\n\nThey tried to weaken the Fed by breaking them up into 3 branches; Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. If those three ever came together, we would have a totalitarian dictatorship, similar to a King ruling us dictating our every move. For examply, only Congress can pass new law, which represents each State. But the President (Executive) decrees new laws every day by executive order. The courts (Judicial Branch) interpret and change laws every day. So the inevitible has happened; all three branches are acting as one, and nobody seems to care.
106227
Gee, if there were only some kind of, oh I don't know, CONSTITUTION... or BILL OF RIGHTS.\nSeems like that would help.
1061069
Yes, just operating on a more local level.  We should go out and round them up.  No mercy, no BS.  \n\nI don't want to hear the ACLU complaining that the rights of gang members were violated (which they would).  Who gives a crap if their rights were violated?  I know I don't.  The rights of the inoocents must be protected from the predators of society.
219694
The right of a state to leave the Union, and the lack of the ability to compromise
125635
States rights and the limits and powers of the Federal Government.  Lincoln was for a more powerful federal government, Douglas was for a more powerful state government.
181730
no they have less rights.  they are allowed to exist only by grant of the gov't.  They are required to follow rules that would be unconstitutional if applied to individuals.
716014
Yes. But this has become a gray area, because it used to be that the Federal law was limited by the Constitution to certain areas, and denied the rest. However, this has changed, and the Federal government is now, and has been for decades, legislating on things they have absolutely no constitutional authority to be meddling with.\n\nAnd the majority of Americans think this is a good thing, which it isn't, and they fail to connect this usurpation of powers with the  fact that they feel their freedoms and rights are being taken away. Un-believable.