Posted: 2/2/2012 6:49:29 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
Plus Wall your quoted question pre-supposes that there have been many instances in the past where the states have been given the ability to try to perform a federal function. That's not exactly a fair framing of the question, as the states shouldn't be handling (nor are they equipped to handle) things that are truly federal functions. Now we can argue about whether or not somethings are federal functions (hello Education!), but your question as posed is not exactly equitable.
Refresh my memory on the conversation.
I disagree with your conclusions here..of course you are entitled to the opinion but I dont agree with what I think you are saying.
The FEDS historically get involved when issues are of a national scope or intra-state where there are differing laws from state to state..OR where the states just arent getting it done and the FEDS step in due to the failure of a state and there needs to be a national standard or rule which can override the state.
So I think that most federal laws and involvement occurs because the state screwed up or there are conflicting standards..
And yes I dont think states can handle things properly in many if not most areas, and for sure not at a level higher or better than the FEDS. So complain all you want about the states, to me if you want to dump federal involvement, the states have to be capable of BETTER performance, efficiency and execution. I do not think that even a small minority are capable..which means all of what RP wants to do is a shell game with more lost than if you keep things as they are..then the FEDS have to step back in again (as they did in the first place).
States suck..that is my point.