Cataphract...to make it grant more powers to the states. Federalism: A union of states in which sovereignty is divided between a central authority and the member state authorities. bensguide.gpo.gov/6-8/glossary.html a system of government in which powers and responsibilities are divided between a national government and provincial or state governments www.aph.gov.au/find/glossary.htm The problem with the US government as it stands today is that individual states do not have the right to control their own economies, and as the national economy and system of laws tends to interfere with the will of the individual states. Life in America would be better for both sides (liberals and conservatives) if each state could set up it's own economic system and laws. For instance, the conservative states could create a strictly libertarian capitalist economy where there are very very minimal taxes, there is no minimum wage, and education and healthcare are privatized. At the same time, the liberal states could create a more "progressive" economy where there is a living wage or universal basic income (UBI) and education and health care is free. I'm sick of the way the national government is allowed to have so much control over how the state governments work: the national government has become a rope in an eternal game of tug-o-war between the liberals and conservatives. It's annoying, especially when you're losing. Anyone else with me on this?
Confederacy cannot work if there is to be one nation. That was our first system of government, but the Founding Fathers immediately realised that sticking to that was suicide for the country.
Our government system is beautifully balanced, the president only enforeces the laws, the House and the Senate create them. Bush may only prevent the passing of new laws.
Confederacy cannot work if there is to be one nation. That was our first system of government, but the Founding Fathers immediately realised that sticking to that was suicide for the country. Only because the United States was too weak at the time to support the Articles of Confederation. Also, what I'm talking about is not reverting back to the Articles of Confederation (in which there was no balance of power between three branches), but just giving more powers to the states. Our government system is beautifully balanced, the president only enforeces the laws, the House and the Senate create them. Bush may only prevent the passing of new laws. For all the pessimism the Founding Fathers had about people in drafting the Constitution, they sure failed to recognize the problems of political parties, one of which is the fact that when a single party controls all three branches of government, there is no longer a system of checks and balances, but complete domination by a group outside the government itself (the political party). The President may only formally prevent passing of new laws, but, by God, he sure is a powerful spokeman for new laws.
If we let the states go to what wouldve been planned in the articles of confederation, it would be a mess. We would have to do exchange rates again on the rates of the money each state printed on their own. Back in the late 1700's each colony had it's own money. Althought i'm Against an overly strong Federal Government, I believe there should be a balance in power, which is what we currently have. Also, there were parties back then too. It's just that they were a bit more partisan at the time. You had the Whigs, and the Democrats, as well as the Republicans, and a few other parties that I cannot remember off the top of my head at the current moment.
I agree in a balance of power. I'm not suggesting that each state have its own monetary system. What you're referring to, with the Whigs, Federalists, Know-Nothings, Republicans, and Democrats, was under the Constitution as well, not the Articles of Confederation.
I agree with having a more republican style of government, like it was intended to be in the beginning of the Constitution. When the Constitution was first made the states had a significant amount of power but over time the federal government has taken away most of their power or become more powerful to overrule the states judgements. Education should not be privatized. That is just about the only thing that the government seems to at least try to be at. As for Red states being Pure Capitalist and Blue states being Socialist, I think that this division should be put in the hands of even smaller governmental divisions, such as district and community counsels. This better represents the people. Take California for example, it is mostly Democratic but only in the cities, most of the area of California is still Red. If you put the option for different forms of government in the hands of the state you would still cause conflict within the state. If you narrowed this down to disticts however you would not have such a high percentage of opposing people, and the people that did oppose could much easier move a couple blocks down the road then to a different state. A true Republic is the way to go.
there are some changes that need to be made but some of the changes that need to be made are to not have changes, just think about this, this is what the government mainly does
the legislative branch makes laws, the executive passes laws and the supreme court rates the constutationality of laws
i think that our government thinks that they need to constantly make more and more laws, we have too many laws for anyone to keep up with, its gotten to a point where they just make up stuff just to so they can be doing something
one of the changes i think they need to make is to just simpilify things
I agree about simplifying the laws. But the system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches is only in principle working...it doesn't work the same way now as it was originally intended. This is what has contributed to the dominance of the executive branch over the other two branches.
InterloperConfederacy cannot work if there is to be one nation. That was our first system of government, but the Founding Fathers immediately realised that sticking to that was suicide for the country. Our government system is beautifully balanced, the president only enforeces the laws, the House and the Senate create them. Bush may only prevent the passing of new laws.
:agreed I live in Texas, I certainly wouldn't want this to happen. It would still make many many Americans unhappy because most states, even ones that appear "all red" or "all blue", like Texas and California, still have large minorities from the opposing political/economic viewpoint, so there would still be tension and conflict, just on a statewide level.
Your idea is truly from the heart, but it would fail to work.
Without a universal economical system, the United States of America would fail to remain a single nation.
Don't ask me, ask Robert. E. Lee.
The national government would be charged with defending every state, regardless of its economic system. Milton Friedman (champion of free market capitalism) says that economic freedom is a necessary, but not sufficient, requisite for political freedom. So my question is: what else needs to be added to this system of economic freedom in order to make it sufficient for political freedom? What is lacking?