What if the USA went into 50 states sharing an army and a ..

[Tyrannical]

It sounds terribly ineffectual, slow and otherwise inefficient. For example, wouldn't your diplomats not only have to consult with the outside party but every member state on every significant, or maybe every, detail of every negotiation?

For internal affairs it doesn't sound so terrible, but on the world scene you'd be less effectual than the UN.

If you stuck to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the Federal government sets foreign policy while the States set their own State policy.
Federal laws would be few, and Federal courts wouldn't be busy. Most law and justice would be at the State level.

One of the big things that Ron Paul talks about that gets ignored more than most of what else he talks about is legal reform. He wants to remove from Federal jurisdiction many things, and that only requires a majority of both Houses and his signature.

[Seth]

It sounds terribly ineffectual, slow and otherwise inefficient. For example, wouldn't your diplomats not only have to consult with the outside party but every member state on every significant, or maybe every, detail of every negotiation?

For internal affairs it doesn't sound so terrible, but on the world scene you'd be less effectual than the UN.

If you stuck to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the Federal government sets foreign policy while the States set their own State policy.
Federal laws would be few, and Federal courts wouldn't be busy. Most law and justice would be at the State level.

One of the big things that Ron Paul talks about that gets ignored more than most of what else he talks about is legal reform. He wants to remove from Federal jurisdiction many things, and that only requires a majority of both Houses and his signature.

Indeed. And Progressives want exactly the opposite; they want to remove EVERYTHING from state jurisdiction and make it part of the Executive State in which everything is centrally planned and directed by the President, using his staff of unelected bureaucrats and regulations, while Congress becomes essentially a debating club that "advises" the President, but which has no actual power to make law or prevent the President from making any regulation he sees fit.

Really, there are only two things required that would put the leash back on the out-of-control federal government and would restore federalism: Repeal the 17th Amendment and return appointment of Senators to the state legislatures; and amend the Commerce Clause to restrict Congress' actions regarding interstate commerce to ONLY that of protecting navigation on navigable waterways and mediating disputes between the states themselves over restraints on trade and commerce that actually crosses state lines brought TO Congress BY the states.

That would eliminate perhaps 90 percent of the federal government overnight.

And one more amendment would be nice; one which requires the federal government to turn over title to ALL federal lands OTHER THAN military bases and DC to the states.

It was NEVER anticipated that the federal government would own 30 percent of the land in this country (and more than 90 percent in some states, like Nevada), it was always presumed that it would be sold to private parties to fund the government (as was the case in the early homesteading years) or would become state property, managed and owned by the states.

The entire federal deficit could be cleared in a couple of years simply by selling off large tracts of federal lands in the west to private ownership, mostly BLM lands but some National Forest lands as well.

[Coito ergo sum]

..currency.

Seth's dream come through.

No FBI, CIA only acting abroad. Washington DC would remain a district, after all the federal government would have somewhere to mess around.

There would be only a state tax and the states would support the federal projects according to population.

A sort of US version of the EU.

Shouldn't the US do whatever Europe is doing? It seems that on every other issue, what Europe does is the enlightened and correct way to do it, and the US way is backwards and stupid, and fat...

[Coito ergo sum]

It sounds terribly ineffectual, slow and otherwise inefficient. For example, wouldn't your diplomats not only have to consult with the outside party but every member state on every significant, or maybe every, detail of every negotiation?

For internal affairs it doesn't sound so terrible, but on the world scene you'd be less effectual than the UN.

If you stuck to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the Federal government sets foreign policy while the States set their own State policy.
Federal laws would be few, and Federal courts wouldn't be busy. Most law and justice would be at the State level.

One of the big things that Ron Paul talks about that gets ignored more than most of what else he talks about is legal reform. He wants to remove from Federal jurisdiction many things, and that only requires a majority of both Houses and his signature.

What would you do about immigration? There is nothing in the Constitution which gives the federal government the power to control immigration. They only get "naturalization." Strictly interpreted, that would mean that the federal government decides who can become citizens of the United States, but not who can be present and who can work in a given state. That power would be left to the states. That would leave it up to the States to patrol their own borders.

[MiM]

What about the currency? It seems to be difficult, if not impossible to have a common currency, unless you have aligned monetary policies. That seems to be what is crushing the Euro zone right now. Simply put Greece, Italy and some others would need to inflate themselves out of debt. But that cannot be done with the common Euro.

[Tero]

Currently the US states have to balance the budget, US Federal does not.

[MiM]

But what happens if some states fail to balance?

[Coito ergo sum]

Currently the US states have to balance the budget, US Federal does not.

...except Vermont. Vermont doesn't have to balance their budget.

[Seth]

It sounds terribly ineffectual, slow and otherwise inefficient. For example, wouldn't your diplomats not only have to consult with the outside party but every member state on every significant, or maybe every, detail of every negotiation?

For internal affairs it doesn't sound so terrible, but on the world scene you'd be less effectual than the UN.

If you stuck to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the Federal government sets foreign policy while the States set their own State policy.
Federal laws would be few, and Federal courts wouldn't be busy. Most law and justice would be at the State level.

One of the big things that Ron Paul talks about that gets ignored more than most of what else he talks about is legal reform. He wants to remove from Federal jurisdiction many things, and that only requires a majority of both Houses and his signature.

What would you do about immigration? There is nothing in the Constitution which gives the federal government the power to control immigration. They only get "naturalization." Strictly interpreted, that would mean that the federal government decides who can become citizens of the United States, but not who can be present and who can work in a given state. That power would be left to the states. That would leave it up to the States to patrol their own borders.

Well, as far as immigration is concerned, states should have the power to patrol their borders for illegal immigrants and arrest and deport them, along with securing their borders. Congress, on the other hand, has plenary power to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1, Section 8), which means that it can choose who and under what circumstances to grant citizenship to any foreigner.

As a matter of national security, the federal government, using the military, should seize, under Eminent Domain, sufficient lands along both our north and south borders, and create a federal military control zone and a secure border patrolled by our military and using whatever technology and/or barriers and/or force is required to prevent illegal entry to the United States except at authorized border crossings.

Internally, states would have the primary responsibility for finding and arresting illegal immigrants, who would be "deported" to the federal military control zone, where the illegals could apply for citizenship and if denied, are deported from this country.

If a state chooses to host illegal aliens and not arrest them, that's up to the people of the state to approve or disapprove through the appointed democratic process. Therefore, if California wishes to become a safe haven state for millions of illegals, it can choose to do so, at ITS OWN EXPENSE, to whatever extent it pleases...but...there would be NO federal funds granted to support California in that charity, and it would be up to the people of the state to pay for the services rendered to illegals.

Other states can chose not to host illegals and can arrest and turn them over to the federal government, who must then deport them.

[Seth]

Currently the US states have to balance the budget, US Federal does not.

Not really true, which is why California is so deep in debt. Only SOME states have balanced-budget provisions in their Constitutions.

[Coito ergo sum]

It sounds terribly ineffectual, slow and otherwise inefficient. For example, wouldn't your diplomats not only have to consult with the outside party but every member state on every significant, or maybe every, detail of every negotiation?

For internal affairs it doesn't sound so terrible, but on the world scene you'd be less effectual than the UN.

If you stuck to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the Federal government sets foreign policy while the States set their own State policy.
Federal laws would be few, and Federal courts wouldn't be busy. Most law and justice would be at the State level.

One of the big things that Ron Paul talks about that gets ignored more than most of what else he talks about is legal reform. He wants to remove from Federal jurisdiction many things, and that only requires a majority of both Houses and his signature.

What would you do about immigration? There is nothing in the Constitution which gives the federal government the power to control immigration. They only get "naturalization." Strictly interpreted, that would mean that the federal government decides who can become citizens of the United States, but not who can be present and who can work in a given state. That power would be left to the states. That would leave it up to the States to patrol their own borders.

Well, as far as immigration is concerned, states should have the power to patrol their borders for illegal immigrants and arrest and deport them, along with securing their borders. Congress, on the other hand, has plenary power to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1, Section 8), which means that it can choose who and under what circumstances to grant citizenship to any foreigner.

That is what I said.

As a matter of national security, the federal government, using the military, should seize, under Eminent Domain, sufficient lands along both our north and south borders, and create a federal military control zone and a secure border patrolled by our military and using whatever technology and/or barriers and/or force is required to prevent illegal entry to the United States except at authorized border crossings.

It can take property for a public purpose provided it pays just compensation. It can't just "seize" it, not constitutionally anyway.

But, that's academic until the Fed tried to make such a seizure. In the meantime, the fact remains, the power to regulate immigration is not in the Constitution, only the power over Naturalization (which is not immigration). If one reads the Constitution strictly, then the federal government ought not have any power over immigration. It is only a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution, that implies a power not written in there, that gives the federal government such power.

That's why it surprises me when strict constructionists always seem to take as a given that the "constitution says that the federal government has the power to control immigration" - it doesn't say that. The Supreme Court said that when it expanded the power of the federal government beyond the language of the Constitution. That's not "strict construction." That's very loose construction.

[Coito ergo sum]

Currently the US states have to balance the budget, US Federal does not.

Not really true, which is why California is so deep in debt. Only SOME states have balanced-budget provisions in their Constitutions.

All of them except Vermont have a balanced budge provision, or their Supreme Courts have interpreted such a requirement based on other provisions which were found to necessarily imply such a requirement. Vermont is the only one.

[Warren Dew]

Really, there are only two things required that would put the leash back on the out-of-control federal government and would restore federalism: Repeal the 17th Amendment and return appointment of Senators to the state legislatures; and amend the Commerce Clause to restrict Congress' actions regarding interstate commerce to ONLY that of protecting navigation on navigable waterways and mediating disputes between the states themselves over restraints on trade and commerce that actually crosses state lines brought TO Congress BY the states.

I think you'd have to repeal the 16th amendment as well. One of the key balances in the original constitution was that direct federal taxes and representation in the house were both proportional to population, and the house of representatives got to originate all spending bills. This balanced responsibility for paying for the federal government with power over how that money was spent, a balance that was broken by the 16th amendment.

[Warren Dew]

What about the currency? It seems to be difficult, if not impossible to have a common currency, unless you have aligned monetary policies. That seems to be what is crushing the Euro zone right now. Simply put Greece, Italy and some others would need to inflate themselves out of debt. But that cannot be done with the common Euro.

Last time this happened in Massachusetts, the voters recognized the problem - entire streets full of empty store fronts made it kind of obvious - and elected someone who could fix it.

In California, it's being handled a little less cleanly:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 ... 98436.html

Honestly, Greece and Italy could be handled as easily through bond defaults as through inflation. In the worst case, they could repudiate their debts, and then they'd be forced to balance their budgets because no one would ever lend to them again.