Quote:
Originally Posted by SummerChild
KPN,
Now, being an attorney and having studied constitutional law in depth, I don't agree completely with your characterization of the amendments, protections afforded therein or the balance between federal, state and people. However, my real question for you is simply what is the answer to the question that I posed? Is your answer that you are really not in favor of state control but against what you perceive as an overextension of federal control into area into which it does not belong - and you have your understanding of this perceived set of limitations on the federal government based on your personal understanding of the Constitution?
Is that the answer?
|
I am in favor of state control, because even under state control I am guaranteed my basic rights, freedoms, and liberties as I would under the federal government. The states simply have the right to exercise general powers (with several exceptions), whereas the federal government only had limited powers, again reserved only to what was enumerated in the Constitution.
As far as the basis of my understanding of the Constitution and whether it is a personal understanding of the document, I'm not sure where you're coming from. My basis of understanding as opposed to what other basis?
Quote:
|
I ask not to challenge you - just to get a real common sense understanding as to why someone would feel more comfortable with the state governing than with the feds governing.
|
Again, it is as a means of checks and balances to prevent any possible abuse of legislative power while preserving the rights of the people and of the states.
Quote:
What is the answer to that (b/c I think you feel more comfortable with states governing - I just really want to understand this). For example, Palin talks about how abortion should be left to states. Is she convinced that a state does more to protect the rights of an individual than the feds, for example? If not, what is this preference for the *state* to exercise power as compared to the feds?
What is the basis for the preference?
|
I hope this sums up your post in a nutshell, but as previously mentioned, the states have general powers, while the federal government have limited powers. However, our Constitution includes stopgaps to prevent the state government from overstepping its bounds and arbitraily infringing on the rights of the people. Essentially, what the federal government is doing (exercising general powers) is actually what the state governments should be doing, but not to the point of infringing on our civil liberties, which is what the federal government is doing.
So this issue is all a matter of recognition and respect of our basic human rights through the freedoms and liberties we exercise as allowed by our United States Constitution, the balancing of power between federal and state to preserve such rights and freedoms, and the enforcement of the Constitution to prevent infringement of such rights.
In 2008 the Constitution has been largely disregarded and/or manipulated to serve the federal government's own selfish ends, hence the numerous dilemmas our country is in today. My vote for Ron Paul served as an appeal for someone to actively (not passively or flippantly) restore our government to follow the laws as enumerated in our Constitution. I can say in all but absolute certainty that Obama and McCain has not addressed this core issue to a lot of America's problems at all.
And THAT is my primary point of contention.
You're quite welcome.
KAP