Would it be better for the states to take over functions currently controlled by the federal government?

In many cases, yes. The federal government is way too bloated and costs the country way too much. And is way too inefficient. Many of the functions are not required to be at the federal level. The country was set up as 50 sovereign states working independently with the federal government in place to deal with things that are better dealt with by a single entity (foreign affairs, military, etc). Most functions were actually supposed to be dealt with at the state level.

It’s not better if it infringes on civil rights, destroys separation of church and state, and destroys the environment.

Previously, the Southern states used “states’ rights” to defend slavery. Now, they want to use it to keep a woman trapped in her own body, teach children religion in school, and take money away from public schools to put into private schools, and to be allowed to pollute. Federal law is meant to be a mínimum standard.

I’m ok with states having some autonomy. Sometimes a state does something very well, and then other states can learn from it. If we only had federal rule, we might be less likely to be innovative, that could probably be argued either way.

@seawulf575 I don’t see how 50 separate governments can be run more cheaply and efficiently than one.

In some ways, yes, but in some ways no. The real problem is that 50 states are going interpret goals 50 different ways, and there would be no such thing as ‘national’ expectations.

Sort of what we are seeing now with abortion laws after Row v Wade.

I don’t trust the yahoos in Raleigh NC to make the right decisions on issues of national importance. legislatures have already shown how they keel over to mobs.

The Heritage Foundation’s ideologues don’t believe government has any legitimate functions outside of protecting national borders and capitalist property norms.

Their agenda for “shrinking the state” is done under the guise of lower taxes for all, because “taxation is theft” and “letting people keep their money” is meant to make everyone richer and more free.

In reality, it’s a pretext for privatising the functions of the state, and any potentially lower taxes will be off-set and overwhelmed by having to pay rent to private investors instead—because their entire ideology and the point of this so-called “think tank” (there’s basically no thinking or real research done) is to advocate for policies and ideas that transfers wealth and resources to the very rich.

@flutherother There are several reasons for it. First, there are already 50 separate governments that are doing what the feds are doing. It might require a little more support in the 50 governments but it wouldn’t match the 3 million currently in the federal government. Another reason is that each state has different needs and requirements.

Another reason is that many things are not a one-size-fits-all solution. The states can more easily focus on the things that are important to their state. They wouldn’t spend as much on things that have no bearing on them.

If the functions were moved to the states, the state taxes would go up (likely) but still wouldn’t be as much as the federal taxes (at least in red states). And with the functions moved, the size of the federal government could be slashed. Instead of 3 million employees it could be brought down to half of that, IMO.

The federal budget has a lot of pork in it. It is so enormous that no one really knows what is in it. But all that pork costs tax payers and benefits politicians. With the functions moving, the pork would dry up and the budgets could be slashed.

Yes, but staggered. One power at a time.

^^^ That’s how the federal Government got so big One agency at a time.

Not if we’re to be the United States of America.

If we want 50 countries, that’ll work. But, these states, are ultimately beholden to the country in which they exist.

The conservatives want it that way, so they can more easily turn over federal laws, that in many cases keep Christian beliefs, from being laws.

The constitution goes to great lengths, to keep this from happening.

In addition, it would be completely unsustainable, for a myriad of reasons.

It amuses me greatly, that people give this concept a second thought.
People NEED federal a government, and it’s oversight, and dealings with taxes and international interests.

It would be exponentially more realistic, and beneficial, to make radical changes that would make the US largely energy independent. No more gas powered vehicles, lawn mowers, etc.
We KNOW, that would improve many negative aspects of our dependence on oil.

Each state being sort-of independently governed, would bring up all sorts of problems. It wouldn’t be entirely different from a dissolving of the Union and each state succeeding.

There are no “borders,” walls, or infrastructure currently existing to separate each state. Something that would be mandatory, if states expect “their” laws to be enforceable.

The US, is simply not made to work like that. Some states make a lot of money. Some states are supported by the rest of the country, so they can provide a special service or product.
Farming states, and one’s like the Dakotas, would have no money, no people, no help for natural disasters, and the diverse state by state laws would create massive opportunities for smuggling and crime.

I am not in complete disagreement with others about how we have too much government already, and it doesn’t seem to give us much advantage.

I would rather make DEEP cuts to the amount of people that “represent” their states/districts in DC, and start cutting congressmen and senators down to a fraction of what we currently have.
“Draining the swamp,” was never attempted.

I firmly believe, if we were to try to make such massive systematic changes, we should draft a new constitution.

We can’t keep changing the current system, it’s incompatible with such changes.

I agree with @MrGrimm888 – -South Carolina and Alabama would declare Original Free Will Baptist the State church.

Oh OH OH we would not need a President ! ! ! ! !

The Taliban States of America….every conservative’s wish

^“Christianistan.”

Not just those states TW.
Texas would drop out too, almost certainly.
Hard to see why California, and New York, wouldn’t follow suit.

Maybe the Indians will essentially take over the Dakotas. That would be interesting, since most of our ICBMs, and “minute men, ” long range style nuclear missile silos are in the Dakotas.

Arizona would probably like to be it’s own country too.

Florida would be a wasteland, from all the hurricane damage each year, and their older population likely having to leave.

Colorado, may as well succeed too.

Kentucky has (depending on your source,) our nation’s gold.

Sounds like a fucking nightmare of politicians all racing to become king of their new independent nation/former US state.

DC might actually be able to stop a couple states from jumping ship. But the temptations of succession and all the power that would potentially come with it would be too great.

It would closest resemble the breaking up of the USSR, in all likelihood. There would still be some type of “America.” But poorly governed/corrupt former states would all fall into various types of catastrophic failure.
Some states, would be dystopian, lawless places.
Some may be prosperous.
But. How to keep it all from running together, like a water color painting, and descending into chaos?

Texas, might actually become an expansionist nation. They certainly won’t be able to build a wall around Texas…They could try to push as far east as the Mississippi River. Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, and Missouri would be possible targets for a larger Texas. Texans wouldn’t be wise to try and keep fighting the losing battle at the southern border (without federal help,) and should focus on capturing greener pastures north and east of them.

Utah, could obviously become a Mormon nation.

Once we put states in charge of themselves, they will pursue their own interests.
Rivers, pipelines, railroads, highways, etc, would potentially require taxes, to pass through.
Some states, could literally destroy states down river from them. Which would also probably cut off Mexico from a large part of the water it depends on.

I think it would be like a fireworks factory fire. Lots of explosions, and fire, and no way to predict what would happen.

After 10–15 years of watching it on TV, the UN may put together a force large enough to save some of our civilians, while the warlords that used to be politicians fight over everything.

Territories, like Puerto Rico, would be super fucked. No state, would be willing to take PR into it’s own. The entire current US, still struggles with PR. It too, is a frequent victim of hurricanes.

Same with the Virgin Islands. Although we could probably sell those, to a European, or even Middle Eastern nation.

Prop 25 baby. FTW!

@MrGrimm888 But we are the United STATES of America. Not America. With all the power and control at the federal level, the states are no longer part of the equation. Like it or not, the country was founded to have 50 autonomous states with one government to tie them all together. The federal government was never meant to be The One government with the states being subservient to it. The Fed was supposed to take care of things that would have been insane for the states to do on their own. Having one military to protect the country needs a single leadership point – Federal Government. When dealing with foreign nations, having that nation have to do 50 separate deals is insane so we have a single point for that – Federal government. Having 50 separate trade agreements between the states made no sense so we needed a single set of rules for interstate trade – Federal government. But the list of things the Feds are SUPPOSED to be in charge of is relatively small.

The states are not powerless.
But the nation is designed to serve it’s people, not the most powerful in a given state.
Right now, the conservatives can’t win a POTUS election in the past few decades. Barely snagging a couple Whitehouses, without the popular vote.

This is another way, of trying to seize control, by the conservatives. Call it whatever you like.

@MrGrimm888 The problem with your view is that it goes against the Constitution and the Founding Fathers and it makes a gross assumption: that we are a Democracy. We are not. The electoral college was put in place for a reason. If you look at the maps, CA, OR, WA, NY, MA and a few other small ones are solidly Dem. All the rest except a few swing states are solidly Repub. But because so much of the population resides in just a few places, should the rest of the country not have a say in anything? Especially when so many of those Dem areas are so screwed up. Maybe you need to ask yourself why the Dems push so hard to get rid of the electoral college. And maybe you need to ask yourself why this same party that is out to “Save our Democracy!” just put a candidate forward that got zero primary votes. None. Didn’t even have to campaign. Does that sound democratic to you?

Hitler was misunderstood and Trump is a good guy ! !

B U L L S H I T

@seawulf575 You make it sound like 90% of CA, OR, WA, NY, and MA vote Democrat in the general elections. Look at the actual statistics for the general elections and you will see it is about 60/40 in the general elections. Florida and Texas each have more electoral votes than New York.

The electoral college give CA the 54 votes for the Dems in the electoral college, but if it was based on the how many residents in CA actually voted for the Democrat, it would be more like 35 votes. CA has more power with the electoral college.

We are a Democracy. We are a Republic and a Democracy.

@seawulf575 I would add Department of Education to maintain equal education in all states, and Bureau of land management to help keep our National Parks, Forests, Monuments, etc. from being sold off to the highest bidder, nearly ½ of California is owned by the government and 80% of Nevada, for instance. Add the Department of energy for a similar reason, Social Security, Medicare and other nation wide health concerns need to be considered. I’m sure the list gets longer when you think about all the services.

@JLeslie I don’t know the percentages those states vote but typically they are solid blue states. they haven’t had a majority support a Republican in as long as I can remember. And you are probably right about percentage differences. If you look at all the blue states, many have an interesting breakdown…the states are red except for the major cities. In CA, it is largely red except for LA, SD, SF, etc. But because the electoral votes are based on the population of the state those that hold conservative views are frequently in the minority and the state goes blue. That makes my point even more poignant. It isn’t those states, it’s just a few cities that are having such an impact.

@YARNLADY There are a few things that might have a legit purpose at the federal level. But even those need to be slashed back. Example: you mention BLM for the National Parks. I think it is important to hold national parks for the country. But BLM goes way beyond that. You mentioned they own 50% of CA and 80% of NV. Why? There aren’t that many national parks in these states. Why is the federal government claiming so much land in the states? Why couldn’t the BLM be cut back to just the national parks?

You are thinking of how things are without considering any other options. Look at the Dept of Education you mentioned. From their own website, we find that they say their purposes are:

“to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual;

to supplement and complement the efforts of States, the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States, the private sector, public and private educational institutions, public and private nonprofit educational research institutions, community-based organizations, parents, and students to improve the quality of education;

to encourage the increased involvement of the public, parents, and students in Federal education programs;

to promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education through federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information;

to improve the coordination of Federal education programs;
to improve the management and efficiency of Federal education activities, especially with respect to the process, procedures, and administrative structures for the dispersal of Federal funds, as well as the reduction of unnecessary and duplicative burdens and constraints, including unnecessary paperwork, on the recipients of Federal funds; and

to increase the accountability of Federal education programs to the President, the Congress and the public. (Section 102, Public Law 96–88)”

Based on the trends of education in this country, I’d say they failed on each and every purpose. It is 4% of the federal budget and the money is basically wasted. Worse, it drags all the education in all the states down with it because it holds them hostage to whatever the flavor of the day is in education.

I’m a big fan of how Sweden turned their education system around. They had something similar to our Dept of Ed and the nations was getting dumber by the year…just like it is hear. So what they did was to privatize the education. Companies would approach the states with their plans for how to run the schools: what the curriculum would be, how it would be structured, what the costs would be, what the extracurricular programs would look like, etc. The states would then figure out what worked best for them and they would send that option over to the Dept of Ed with the cost estimates including what they (the states) would need from the DoEd to meet the costs. All the DoEd did was to review the proposals, establish periodic audits to ensure goals are being met, and send the cash to the states. They didn’t establish the curriculum, they didn’t put in their demands or any of that. The education was left up to the states with the DoEd being merely the money factor. If the states weren’t getting the results, they could change to a different company for their education. If they continued to have problems with results but didn’t do anything about it, the politicians at the state level could be replaced or the DoEd could start questioning and withholding cash. Their education system turned around and flourished.

Every single department of the federal government needs to have a complete overhaul at the very least. They are not providing the best service to the people and they have gotten so big and siloed that there is no way for the people to change them.

@seawulf575 Solid red or solid blue is simply the vote is probably 60% or more go to one of the parties. It’s not always a huge majority.

The media is calling Florida red now. The last election was 51/48 for Trump.

California Republicans would have a voice in a direct vote for president, but you don’t want it. They do get representation in the House of Representatives.

The EC favors Republicans because there are red states that are over-represented by the electoral college. Every state gets 2 senators. Most states give all electoral votes to the winner.

@JLeslie EC favors less populated states. It allows them a say in how the country is run. Without it, campaigning would only focus on the major population centers and all decisions would only be for their benefit.

If you want my opinion, if you were to change the EC, it would be to give each county (or borough in NYC) one electoral vote. That electoral vote represents the needs of the people in that area. And no state is winner take all. The purpose of this would be so that politicians need to consider the needs of all the people, not just some, and all states, not just some. Decisions for the advancement of the nation would include everyone, not just a few.

@seawulf575 Giving each county one electoral vote wouldn’t work. One vote to represent anywhere from 50 to 3million people?

As a side note each Burough in NYC is it’s own county.

Edit: I guess with the county suggestion it does address the differences within a state. I might need to think about it more.

@JLeslie I remember when I was in the navy I was stationed by SF. Just before I got out there was an issue brewing in the state. Some politician in LA was coming up for re-election. He decided water bills were his platform. He made a proposal that the state redirect the Sacramento river down to LA, much like they did with the Colorado river, so it could lower the water costs. The problem is doing that would have robbed central CA and all the agriculture there of needed water. But the proposal was actually progressing to a vote. So here is the vote: LA and surrounding areas getting lower water costs with no downside to them against the farmers and ranchers in central CA who gain nothing but lose everything. Voting on something like that, the popular vote would go towards LA. The issue died on the vine, though, when some environmentalists realized that would wipe out at least one endangered species.

That dynamic is much the same as what would happen to the country if you did away with the EC.

Sorry Wulf. I had responded to your earlier remark, but I don’t see it here.

In summation, I disagree with your interpretation of the constitution.
Or. Simply don’t care, about laws that are not currently relevant.
The constitution, was designed to give the people the most power. Even if you go by elected leaders, of their respective states, it doesn’t matter.
Plain and simple; Governors, were never meant to be kings of 50 different kingdoms.

It won’t work, in large part, because people are by nature corrupt and greedy.

As far as voting goes, there’s nothing more fair, than going by the popular vote.
America, is simply not old enough, for ANY statements that support an EC, to be authentic. We do not KNOW, that only big cities, would determine things.

IF it is a democracy (or democratic republic,) there’s no legitimate argument for not determining a winner by whomever has the most votes.
And there’s nothing to discuss.
The EC, is just another way the federal government has overstepped, and made sure that ultimately the people are only served by the government, if it suits the most powerful.

Too many chiefs, not enough braves, for states to hold all the power. Nothing would EVER get done.

@MrGrimm888 We do know that if you go by popular vote, only a few states would be needed to carry every issue taken to a vote. And that would exclude at least 40 states. The fact that you don’t want to read the Constitution or you don’t believe or understand what you are reading is irrelevant. Do the math yourself. You can try hiding behind the “we don’t know” claim. It’s bullshit. You want popular vote. Most people in a given area vote basically the same. In a city, the majority of the people will vote the same way. I just gave an example of what was going on in California when I was there. LA, the biggest city in the state at that time wanted to do something. Their votes alone would have basically carried the vote. But it would have wiped out half the state. It’s simple math. And when you are looking at the entire country, you are missing the fact that it is 50 states, not one country. All 50 states are represented fairly using the Electoral College. That is as it should be.

So to put it to rest: the EC is spelled out in the Constitution. It is the law of the land. It would take a major rewrite of the entire constitution to change it. It is the basis of how Senators and Representatives are assigned. It is how Presidents and Vice Presidents are elected. And We. Are. Not. A. Democracy. Stop listening to the Democrats. They are wrong every time they talk about defending the Democracy.

^The constitution was designed, so that NOTHING could EVER be “put to rest.”
It is designed, so that it can be amended. That ,would be the constitution working.

You conveniently omitted that this Project 25 plan of putting each state in total control of itself, would ALSO require some constitutional flexibility.

The EC served a purpose once.
It is irrelevant, because it is obsolete. People are ALL connected now. People living in a basement, have connections with people all over the world.
Your “big city” argument, is no longer logical.

As far as Democrats, and democracy, at least the dems want EVERYONE to be able to vote. You definitely can’t say the same, for your team.

@MrGrimm888 Yes, the Constitution can be amended. Do you realize what doing away with the EC would do? Any idea? You’d do away with one of the cornerstones of the country. How congress is elected. How many representatives each state gets. How presidents and vice presidents are selected. You basically gut the basis for everything else in the Constitution. That is a completely idiotic idea, especially when it is based on the crazy claims of the loony left.

As for Project 2025 (which is what I think you are thinking of), you realize Trump has never endorsed that and that he is in no way associated with it, right? It was something the Heritage Foundation came up with. but yeah, the loony left keeps trying to tie it to Trump. Good job, folks. Make up the lie, repeat it over and over, and then tell everyone how horrible someone that has nothing to do with it in reality is for creating it. But let’s look at Project 2025 for a moment. Have you ever actually read it? Of course you haven’t…what was I thinking? You didn’t even know where it came from. All you have is bullshit the lefty media feeds you with your morning coffee. And your understanding of what it ACTUALLY says is weaker than your understanding of the US Constitution, if that is possible. Project 2025 does indeed want to put much more control back into the hands of the States. And that will require no amendments to the US Constitution. They are supposed to be there anyway. If you actually read the Constitution you’d come across the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. They are listed there. Those are the only powers the federal government is supposed to have. All other powers are with the states. It has been amended over the years as things changed and grew, but the point is that the Feds are NOT supposed to control everything. It is unconstitutional. Many things have grown in the federal government that are illegal and have been allowed to exist because no one challenged them at the time of their creation or because their original purpose was one of monitoring and not control. As the bureaucracy morphed this into control, no one challenged it. Project 2025 is basically recommending that these illegal overreaches are stopped, that the power goes back to the states where it belongs, and the federal departments and divisions are closed down, shrinking the size and overreach of the federal government.

“People are ALL connected now. People living in a basement, have connections with people all over the world. Your “big city” argument, is no longer logical.” Sooo…you are suggesting that people all over the world should be allowed to participate in our elections? That is a moronic idea. Tell me one country in the world that does that. Your frantic attempts to be right in this debate is what is no longer logical.

As for the Democrats wanting everyone to vote, you are absolutely correct. Despite the laws they want EVERYONE to vote. Illegals, felons, dead people…anyone that can fill out a stack of ballots…EVERYONE. And you’re right. My side (the sane Independents) DON’T want that. We want only people that are allowed to vote to do so. We want as many legal votes to be cast as possible. But the only way you can get that is through things like Voter IDs, hand counting ballots or having them independently counted several times over. Things like making sure only legal citizens are able to register to vote. Yeah, you know…LEGAL things. You definitely can’t say the same for your team.

^ Yawn…Too much wrong, to even address…