It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can we all come to an agreement? The Federal government needs to be stripped of it's power.

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I believe the Federal Government needs a massive reduction in power. I don't mean our current Administration - But, if you do happen to vehemently oppose the current administration, maybe you'll see a valid point or two within my proposal to remove their power in general.

The government that has the power to bring into question/change our 2nd amendment rights has the power to question Roe vs Wade.

The government that has the power to ignore/deny someones religious freedoms, also has the power to ignore/deny Separation of Church and State.

The government that has the power to regulate business in ways that are beneficial for the people also has the power to regulate business in ways detrimental for the people. ( Subsidies, corporate lobby-ism, small-business killing regulations, Obamacare... )

The government that has the power to tax us for causes we believe in, also has the power to tax us for things we do not.

The government that can force executive orders you support, can also force ones you oppose.

What I'm getting at is that all of us are very different - There is no "one size fits all" answer here, and as such, I believe that community, county, and state government should inherit a lot of the power and responsibilities the federal government currently has - Some things may need to be handled at the federal level, but I really believe it's a lot less than we imagine. If it's not in the constitution, I believe each state has the right to do it's own business. ( For instance, tax-status of religious organizations - Utah might be great with it, California might deny charity status - And I'm okay with that)

What do you think, fellow members of ATS - Do you think such a move could go well?




posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

I agree with the sentiment, but having seen what some of the States have come up with on their own, some Federal laws are necessary. Which is an unpopular notion, but whatever.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The Clinton/Obama/Soros/Globalist establishment is fighting Trump at every single turn. From manipulating the media in attempt to convince the populace that Trump is the bad guy, to blocking executive orders from their motherland of California.

Once the Trump regime gains foothold we will finally see these crooks toppled, and our own American ways restored.

Vault 7.
edit on 11-2-2017 by chadderson because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

Right - I do believe in the constitution, and I do believe in very basic laws given from the top - But I also advocate for the states right to bring into question that law, perhaps enough citizens, mayors, etc would have to want to over-throw it. On the other hand I don't believe in adopting laws that aren't questioned, either - I think support should be given by the people for any law to be passed in a state, or denied in a state.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Wouldn't that allow Arizona to have its own immigration policy?
And other states have their own policies for transgender and gays?
States could disband unions.

Slippery slope ahead.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

...and what's the problem?



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Then it's no longer a government... but a lawless free for all.

Revamp it, overhaul it, reorganize and reform it? Sure... But you can't change laws, amendments and policies overnight, burn the buildings down, suddenly tear up the constitution and fire all the lawmakers... Then who's left?

Rogue, unorganized groups of people all arguing their points for change... then we'd all be wearing Chairman Mao suits and issued 1 cup and 1 plate.

We need some form of learship for change dialog... and that's still a minute form of government



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Why are those things slippery slopes?

The Federal Government would more handle illegals coming into the country in general.

But if Arizona doesn't want to enforce immigration laws - Or wants to enforce them even more, what's wrong with that?

Unions are a terrible, terrible thing these days - If you mean like workers unions. They charge you a fee to do nothing, and make it harder to do business. They were good decades ago, not so much now.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: bigsnowman

No problem as long as you're good with abortion bans, gay marriage bans, gun bans, etc etc.

I like our Republic how it is now.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger

I didn't call for anarchy, and I believe the constitution should be honored.

Roe v Wade for instance - handled on the federal level.

States can choose what trimester you can have an abortion, whether or not taxes can go towards places that perform them, etc.

The Fed would give loose guidelines and handle relations with other countries, while the states would get more freedom.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Refer to my reply to Mysterious.

No one can ban guns or abortions - I didn't say tear up the constitution, nor get rid of the supreme court.

And government should stay the hell away from marriage in general in my opinion - I think laws should be made that government can go fu** themselves when it concerns our relationships with other consenting adults.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

If those bans are what the majority of a state's population supports, they should be allowed to have them. A state shouldn't be told what it can and can't have by the other 49. If I don't like what my state enacts, I'll move to another.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: bigsnowman

I agree to an extent -

If California wants to ban concealed or open carry, and larger magazines, and military grade weaponry, fine.

If California wants to allow third-term abortions, fine.

To ban all guns though? I don't think they should be able to.

Utah shouldn't be able to ban all abortions, either.

Just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Aside from the Constitution the Feds HAVE come up with a couple of "winners". The Clean Water Act legislation, standardizing CDL regulations and a national database of registered drivers so no more State hopping for drivers who have DUI's ect...The National Food Service Managers database.

I'm particularity thrilled with the USDA's recall services for food.

OSHA's minimum regulations for workplace safety.

DOL reporting mechanisms for employees who get shafted by their employers on their timecards.

Not everything the Feds have implemented have been bad. Sure there's lots of BS to cut and some excessive over- regulation, but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Did you know it's LEGAL in many states to offer no lunch break for workers over 18yrs of age? Even an unpaid lunch break? Companies aren't going to treat their workers as humans without a big stick over their heads.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I won't agree with stripping our government of power. If you did, the states would not have the same basic laws and then that would cause chaos between the states. The Feds regulate things and act as a moderator.

How would you like to live next to the border of a state and have prohibition in that state then these people come across the border and shoot you for consuming alcohol. Our states would constantly be fighting each other. Who would get the nukes our country has? Who would protect our nation from other power hungry dictators.

The price of food would skyrocket, there would be no antitrust laws and also there would be no disaster funds for areas hit by disasters. There would be no social security for the people when they get old nor would there be medicare. There would be nobody controlling greedy pharma companies and medical people who take all of your money. Well, hopefully Trump actually does something about the pharma and medical problems we have in this country.

What about pollution, is it right for a state to polute the water and have that polluted water negatively effect all states and people farther down river?

It would be a lot better to try to fix some problems correctly than to get rid of our Federal governments power.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

And I've said several times that I am not saying the Fed should not make any laws, or should be gotten rid of or made 100% obsolete - Just that mostly we should be able to do what we want, and in some instances may have to follow national guidelines, or work within a standard.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

We tried the whole confederacy thing (technically twice). As I recall, that didn't work out so well either time.


edit on 11-2-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
The federal government was never meant to have this much power, a government that can force you to buy a product or service from a private company ( yeah I`m talking about the unaffordable care act) is a government that has overstepped it`s authority.

The federal government should only be involved with things that directly affect all the states, things like national defense,immigration etc.

as you said, one size doesn`t fit all so let the states decide individually what size best fits them,that way if you don`t agree with the laws of one state you can move to a state that has laws that better reflect the way that you want to live.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Most of what you are calling for is exactly what Trump has said he wants to do.
He wants to reduce Federal control over many things and give that power back to the states.
There are way too many Federal regulations, and Trump is already working on reducing them.

But there are certain things that need to be handled Federally for common sense reasons.
These are covered in the Constitution, and include things like national security, immigration, trade deals with other countries, etc.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Okay I think I'm giving up on this thread.

What I said was "Some things may need to be handled at the federal level" and "state government should inherit a lot of the power and responsibilities the federal government "

What people took that as " Let's instate anarchy and chaos and have no federal rules at all "




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join