When Can the Federal Government Override a State Government?

[insidemanpoker]

I find one of the things people I argue with frequently bringing up is that if the power is left to the states, all sorts of individual rights will be stepped on by the states. This is undoubtedly true, but of course I believe a lot less bad occurs on a local level. That being said, I don't really like having to make such a fluffy argument. How do you guys respond to this? When does the federal government have a right to intrude on a state affair?

[insidemanpoker]

Help!

[Anti Federalist]

When Can the Federal Government Override a State Government?

Whenever it feels like it.

[Pericles]

The design was to have governments compete to protect the liberties of the people. Should a state pass a law or place in its constitution, something that conflicts with e US Constitution, the courts should negate the state level lstatute in favor of the bill of rights, or other Constitutional provision.

[KCIndy]

When Can the Federal Government Override a State Government?

Whenever it feels like it.

Yep. Absolutely correct. Anyone who doubts this can go ask medical marijuana users in California.

[robert9712000]

Whenever it feels like it.

Sad to say AF is right on.Its supposed to be the states have power over the federal to be a check and balance to prevent the federal from centralizing authority,but now its basically the law that governs is whoever has the most force and that's the federal.The only way the states can fight back is to refuse to acknowledge the ruling of the federal law that conflicts with the state.I don't know if they can use physical force on a state but they can use financial force,which states need too not succumb to the blackmail of federal money being withheld and learn to operate without the dependance of federal money.

[tttppp]

I find one of the things people I argue with frequently bringing up is that if the power is left to the states, all sorts of individual rights will be stepped on by the states. This is undoubtedly true, but of course I believe a lot less bad occurs on a local level. That being said, I don't really like having to make such a fluffy argument. How do you guys respond to this? When does the federal government have a right to intrude on a state affair?

I'm actually becoming a non-believer that the state and local governments are run better than the federal government. From what I have seen, the state and local governments are just as corrupt and incompetent as the federal government. All the state and local governments are is unnecessary bureaucracy.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I'm actually becoming a non-believer that the state and local governments are run better than the federal government. From what I have seen, the state and local governments are just as corrupt and incompetent as the federal government. All the state and local governments are is unnecessary bureaucracy.

Yeah, but the closer they are to you, the more they have to worry about you showing up and expressing your disapproval. It's a legitimate concern of those who wish to walk on others.

[tttppp]

Yeah, but the closer they are to you, the more they have to worry about you showing up and expressing your disapproval. It's a legitimate concern of those who wish to walk on others.

That really doesn't seem to concern them.

[heavenlyboy34]

typical answer you'll get among the general population-"the States' rights issue was settled by the Civil War".

[heavenlyboy34]

Whenever it feels like it.

Absolute truth.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm actually becoming a non-believer that the state and local governments are run better than the federal government. From what I have seen, the state and local governments are just as corrupt and incompetent as the federal government. All the state and local governments are is unnecessary bureaucracy.

ummmm, sorta. For all the failings of state and local governments, they're far more rational and accountable than the feds. (governors in all states I know of have to concern themselves with avoiding getting impeached ala Grey Davis, while presidents have no such fear of reprisal from Boobus)

[mrsat_98]

The Federal Government exists under national emergency ( bankruptcy) all the states have pledged everything to them to assist in the contrived emergency. The states go along with it they are not being overruled.

[tttppp]

ummmm, sorta. For all the failings of state and local governments, they're far more rational and accountable than the feds. (governors in all states I know of have to concern themselves with avoiding getting impeached ala Grey Davis, while presidents have no such fear of reprisal from Boobus)

Given the level of corruption in state and local governments and the fact that very few of them are getting impeached, it doesn't appear that there is much more of a threat of them being impeached than anyone in the federal government.

If they are not going to provide a significantly better government than fed, I don't see any point to their existence.