Why The States Should Have More Power

The state overriding any policy that they disagree with on a regular basis could lead to problems when considering political bias; e.g., Texas is usually a republican state, but many of the metropolitan cities vote democratic. A disagreement with policy could simply be the state trying to control their own political agenda. The states should be able to step in whenever the cities policies get extreme and begin to push boundaries, but controlling every policy basically defeats the purpose of home rule. The state governments are accustomed to reviewing large scale policies so, in some cases, the cities do not need a large-scale perspective. There seems to be more harm than good that comes with a strong state

States have always been sensitive about the amount of power they have; the federal government has always had to step carefully around the demands of the states. This has been true since the beginning of the United States. But both believe that they should have the most power when it comes to certain things. Individual states have different values and as such tend to implement different laws about certain topics; such states want their state laws to reflect these individual values instead of a blanket law from the federal government. States should have less power compared to the federal government when implementing laws dealing with topics such as the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion.

The states can set up local governments, regulate in-state businesses and establish schools. As James Madison said, “The different governments will each control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” James Madison is trying to say is that the central and state governments have enough power that they don’t control everything. Federalism protects against tyranny because it balance out the power among the central and state governments.

James Madison in Federalist Paper #51 writes “Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will each control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” This idea of Federalism allows the governments to be supervised by the others while having control over itself. The powers of the government are spilt between the central and state government so neither government could gain more power over the other. The powers that state governments have are more specific to the state then the powers given to the central government. For example, states were given the powers to pass marriage and divorce laws, establish schools, set up local governments among others because these issues differ largely from state to state. Hence, it would make it illogical to give the central government these types of rights because these issues vary from state to state making it an act of tyranny by the majority against the minority. (Document A)

The federalist wanted the state government to have less powers than the central government because they thought it was the best way to keep the States together. The anti-federalist on the other hand were more in favorite of the states having more power in order to prevent any kind of tyranny. George Bryan an anti-federalist said this " to declare that each state retains it sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right,which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." If more power was given to the states we could be sure that our rights would not be infringed. Another reason the anti-federalist didn’t like the constitution and wanted to stay with states having more power is the the Constitution did not give a bill of rights. Some of the people who wanted the states to have more more power was Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and John

The central government has enough power to help some of the country’s major needs and the state government has enough power to help the states because states’ needs may differ. For example, New York focuses on urban development and homelessness while Iowa focuses more on agriculture. In this and so many other ways, dividing powers between the federal and state governments prevents tyranny.

Federal government can rule over the laws of state governments by introducing a new policy, which would be implemented nationwide. So, it would make sense for the state government to intervene in the policies made by the local government. If the laws passed by the federal government can be implemented nationwide, regardless of the state’s views on those laws, the laws passed by the state should also be implemented state-wise, regardless of the views of local government. However, I do not believe that local control needs to be influenced by the state government. The local policies are the ones that closely represent what the people want in the local community. For example, the residents of Denton, Texas voted to ban fracking in their local community through a people-led referendum. The people were troubled with toxic fumes, bright lights, and noise due to the fracking sites right in their backyards. The ban on fracking provides what the people of Denton wanted. Local control is also necessary because people in different counties in the same state might have different opinions on the same issue. For example, people of Loving County may encourage fracking as the county is not heavily populated, fracking sites could be constructed far from residential areas, and fracking is a boost in the economy (not much in the

The state government system is the bottom, the foundation of United States. Then, it moves up into the federal government which is at the top of the power chain. This whole concept shows that the state and federal government must have some the same policies and systems to work together, the way it does. Although, It must be somewhat different, otherwise a compromise would have never been made at the Constitutional Convention. Overall, this shows that the United States government gets all of its power from the citizens of the United States of

Federal governments having power of, declaring a war, Create and maintain armed forces, establish foreign policy, regulate interstate and foreign trade, make copyright and patent laws, establish postal offices and coin money. I believe that if each state made all their own rules there would be more trouble then there is now. Like I just feel as if the federal government should make rules across the board for everyones state so that everyone is

Seperating powers between the states and the federal government was there to make the power equal. The whole point was, no one can get too much power enough to overthrow. James Madison, had the idea to create federalism, which would divide powers between the central government and their states. THe power they had to share are taxes, borrowing money, set counts and how to make and enforce laws. Power was dividend between the central goverment and states both have their own responibiles.

As said in James Madison’s Federalist paper, number 51, “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is the first divided between two distinct governments, and the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate governments.” Some powers that were given to the Federal government is to regulate trade, declare war, and print and coin money. Some powers that were given to the State governments were to hold elections, establish schools, and pass marriage and divorce laws. By distributing powers between the Federal and State governments, neither can become tyrants, which means they will help keep each other in check. Federalism ensures that the Federal government doesn’t have too much say in what happens to the

The debate is centuries old, “Does size matter?” and in the case of the government and deciding the amount of power it should have, the answer is most definitely yes. Politically, there are two main views on government; one side believes that the federal government should have all of the power and authority in order to create a unified and centralized country, however the other side feels that the United States is too big to be able to effectively run and regulate the country, so the power should be delegated to the state and local governments. In the beginning of our nation this decision was widely disputed, “When the nation was founded, the framers of the U.S. Constitution disagreed about whether to create a strong national government or give more power to the states. When the nation was founded, the framers of the U.S. Constitution disagreed about whether to create a strong national government or give more power to the states” (Current Issue 2). Our first federal government had little power granted to it by the Articles of Confederation, but this caused issues because it was too weak to be effective and had to rely on the states, “The government gave most powers to the states, and the central government consisted only of a legislature” (UShistory.org ch.2 partB sect.3). The government decided to gather delegates in order to revise this system, but instead ended up drafting a new document which provided the federal government with considerably greater portion of the power,

States have the right to create their own laws that serve to protect their own citizens. It is stated in the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, under the Bill of Rights,

I do not think state and local governments should pass their own laws regarding foreign immigration because that would further create division and chaos if all state governments were not on the same page and did not function together as a whole. Besides this notion, the Constitution gives the power to conduct foreign affairs solely to the federal government. Because immigration involves foreign affairs, it should only be the job of Congress. However, I think it is crucial that each state has some say when it comes to immigration. According to the article, Understanding Immigration Federalism in the United States, “States are responding to ramped-up immigration enforcement by attempting to mitigate its harmful effects and ensure that only serious

The argument for state control has more to go on. For one, all land in the state would be under the same control and there would be no disagreements on what is illegal and legal. If the local government had control over that there would be more confusion. For instance, if alcohol was legal in one district but not in the other, a lot of people could