3 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: U.S. Politics megathread
What’s the point of states being part of federal government if federal systems are being left to the states?
Disaster aid, labor laws, healthcare, education. These are all things on trumps chopping block, and if these things are abolished, what other than military support is the federal govt going to offer states?
Comment by Acrobatic-Trouble181 at 04/02/2025 at 23:11 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
As time has gone by, America has had to grapple with its original idealistic founding principles, and the realities of a changing world.
There have been many civic, economic, etc. problems the country has faced where it was determined that action at the federal level would be far more effective, less expensive, and reasonable to implement, than implementing a myriad of unique solutions on a state-by-state basis. And in some cases, it was the only power remaining to the people.
For example, in the late 1800s there was a crisis of poor food standards in many states, particularly the South (since they were still recovering from the Civil War), and the people of those states were pleading for help since they couldn't trust that their food wasn't contaminated, or bread made with sawdust, or one of thousands of other issues related to food. But, because of their corrupt/broke/uncaring state governments, people went to the Federal government, which had the power and authority to provide support as-needed.
Thus, the FDA was created by Congress, and its responsibilities handed to the President to set and enforce minimum food standards across the country and aid its people. There are many other examples you can look in to - essentially just look into the founding history of each and every department under the President's command and you'll find a similar story playing out.
Essentially the Federal government's role in The People's lives has evolved into an entity that sets minimum standards, and exercises the will of all of the states federal representatives to aid in the Common Good. Conservatives today would use the word 'socialist' to describe the programs, as if it was a pejorative, but at one point in history these programs were deemed necessary and vital to the survival and care of the American people, so treating them with disdain is short-sighted. Forgetting these lessons, and reverting back to a Federal government that takes little-to-no role in people's lives risks ignoring the lessons of history, only to repeat them.
Comment by GameboyPATH at 04/02/2025 at 21:35 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
There's Republicans who argue that the role that the federal government plays goes too far beyond what the constitution explicitly outlines as "enumerated powers" to be managed by the federal government, which includes running a military, collecting taxes, managing immigration and citizenship, regulating trade, and declaring war. Even advocates for a smaller federal government typically stand firm on these functions being left intact.