Has the federal govt. become too involved in things that should be up to the state?

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I was watching something on TV Sunday where they were talking to a guy who had written a book about Thomas Jefferson. In it he spoke of Jefferson's struggle to keep the union together after 1776. He talked about how South Carolina and some other state in the north east wanted to secede the union. But he knew that if the union broke up that Spain, England and France would come in and take them over. In order to keep the union together they all signed a contract that the federal level government would stay out of state except for self defense. He made it sound more like a NATO treaty. The states wanted to govern themselves.

Everyone knows of the US civil war. Most people think that is was about slavery and in a sense it was. The reason for the southern states trying to secede from the union was over the federal government trying to rule over the state i.e. states rights. The southern states wanted the ability to use slaves to harvest the crops and the federal government said that wasn't right along with many other things. (I'm not talking about whether slavery is right or wrong here.)

In light of the Katrina disaster it got me to thinking. Has the federal government become too involved in things that should be up to the state? The governors of the states appears to me to be no more than a CEO of a company rather than a law making office like they used to be. The county I live in even calls the head of the county the CEO. I've always thought that was strange.

So the question is "Has the federal govt. become too involved in things that should be up to the state?" Keep in mind what the United States was originally designed to be. The key is "United" "States".

[Steel2686]

I absolutely believe the states need more power. Although, I can't imagine what Louisiana would do.... They couldn't even handle an evacuation.

[2Fbodcru]

So the question is "Has the federal govt. become too involved in things that should be up to the state?"

I hope I can say yes without starting a flame war, like some of my other posts have, but the answer is yes. I am not worried about the Federal Government gaining more control during the present administration, but once a precedent (a person or thing that serves as a model) is established, and laws are passed, then all administrations that follow can use and abuse this power, any way they see fit. When the Federal Government gains all of the control, then there are not the “checks and balances” that there needs to be, to insure that our freedoms and liberties are not trampled on. The Federal Government is going to take over the role of handling all disasters in the future, because Bush has already stated this in a speech the other night: “It is now clear that a challenge on this scale, requires greater Federal authority, and a broader role for our armed forces”, then he went on to evoke September the 11th, and then said “when the Federal Government fails to meet such an obligation, I as President, am responsible for the problem and the for the solution”. I believe Congress will have to get involved in this, but I have no doubt that they will give him what he wants.
It all sounds good on paper, and I’m sure that Bush would handle this new found power well, but what happens from here on out, after he is not the president anymore, and we have someone else in the Whitehouse? He is already going to pass on the Patriot Act to the next administration, which is something that has the potential, if used incorrectly, to be used to trample all over the rights of anybody and everybody in this country.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Here is where I think it starts going bad for the states. I can't figure out for the life of me why the states agreed with this amendment.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html the 17th amendment
**********************
[Article XVII.]
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Proposal and Ratification
The seventeenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-second Congress on the 13th of May, 1912, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 31st of May, 1913, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Massachusetts, May 22, 1912; Arizona, June 3, 1912; Minnesota, June 10, 1912; New York, January 15, 1913; Kansas, January 17, 1913; Oregon, January 23, 1913; North Carolina, January 25, 1913; California, January 28, 1913; Michigan, January 28, 1913; Iowa, January 30, 1913; Montana, January 30, 1913; Idaho, January 31, 1913; West Virginia, February 4, 1913; Colorado, February 5, 1913; Nevada, February 6, 1913; Texas, February 7, 1913; Washington, February 7, 1913; Wyoming, February 8, 1913; Arkansas, February 11, 1913; Maine, February 11, 1913; Illinois, February 13, 1913; North Dakota, February 14, 1913; Wisconsin, February 18, 1913; Indiana, February 19, 1913; New Hampshire, February 19, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913; South Dakota, February 19, 1913; Oklahoma, February 24, 1913; Ohio, February 25, 1913; Missouri, March 7, 1913; New Mexico, March 13, 1913; Nebraska, March 14, 1913; New Jersey, March 17, 1913; Tennessee, April 1, 1913; Pennsylvania, April 2, 1913; Connecticut, April 8, 1913.
Ratification was completed on April 8, 1913.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by Louisiana, June 11, 1914.
The amendment was rejected by Utah (and not subsequently ratified) on February 26, 1913.
**************************

[Red20170]

Posse Comitatus has pretty much thrown out the window since Katrina. How about the fourth amendment? Seems that's out the window too since Katrina. How about National ID cards. Opps.. I mean drivers licenses. They use to be run by the individual states. Ask our Supreme Court about private property rights. The Patriot Act is a good example of turning our Constitution into T.P Katrina is a Good example on why we should never have gotten rid of civil defense.