The states should have significantly more power than the national government.

"The major reasons the Articles failed was that It was just meant to be a temporary constitution to unite the colonies so that a more permanent constitution would be established"Yeah thats not true at all...... The Articles of confederation were meant to create a confederacy of states with a very weak central government and keep it that way, but they eventually scrapped it because the national government was way too weak to even function. Hell the Constitution and the A.o.C. are so different on so many levels that its clear that the A.o.C. were never meant to be temporary, otherwise most of it would have been preserved in the new Constitution, which didnt happen. in fact the Constitution is just about the complete opposite of what the Articles of Confederation was meant to do. " Instead, consider it taxing the states, not the people in the states. In my plan, GA can adopt FairTax, California can adopt Flat Tax, and New York can continue with income tax"And you really dont see how that can be a problem? The national government tax is the moderate, middle-of-the-road plan to collecting revenue whereas if the states were free to levy their own taxes on income you would see states with 90% taxes on the rich and others that take 60% from the very poor while the rich keep 10%..... "the states control what the PEOPLE pay."No it doesnt, your plan is just a poorly disguised effort to let the states determine WHICH people pay. If states could tax income however they want then every state in the south would tax the middle class and the poor more then the rich while in other states the exact opposite would happen. "It did not establish a national currency-my plan gave this power to the federal government"Yes but you left out the power of controlling how much money gets printed to the states, and it would only take one state to completely screw something up (printing way too much of it or devaluing it) for it to negatively affect the other 49 states.... "In my plan, the states regulate commerce how they see fit"But nobody would give a sh*t what all the other states choose to regulate! if Nevada dumps toxic waste into rivers that flow through California, and California wants Nevada to stop dumping toxic waste into the rivers, Nevada isnt obligated to give a sh*t about what California wants even though their actions affect them. When regulating commerce, all the states involved have to agree on the regulations in order for the regulation to be established... But in your plan it only takes one state to shoot down the regulation from passing, no other states have to abide by the regulation even though their actions affect those states, and nobody can impose regulations on another state even if they are all being negatively affected by what that state doesYour plan doesnt let states regulate commerce, your plan flat out eliminates it"Yes, racism and sexism is bad. I agree. However, how much will civil rights account for? "Judging from the South's elaborate history of racism, A LOT. "Will safeguarding civil rights include legislation on abortion, gays, guns, etc.. If so, the national government would go too far."So when the governemnt safeguards civil rights you dont like, then in your opinion the government has gone too far.....(And people wonder why the South is so f***ed up)"Your idea of "safeguarding civil rights" is extremely vague and could end up being taken advantage of and taken out of its original meaning."And your idea of safeguarding civil rights allows states to decide what is or isnt a civil right, which means that retarded states could decide that blacks cant marry whites, or blacks should be able to vote, or that democrats only count as 3/5ths of a person, or make it legal to hunt mexicans by saying they arent people, simply because the states could decide what is or isnt a civil right......Seeing as how some states are too stupid to realize what is or isnt a civil right, leaving civil rights to the states would only result in a tremendous scaling back of rights that would disenfranchise a very large part of the population. "What if one crime in one state is the death penalty and the same crime in another state is a few years in prison. What would the penalty be then?"Whichever state the crime was committed in gets to decide dingus, thats how it works. "what if the nation wants one thing to be illegal and the states want it legal, or vice versa?"No genius thats not what im saying. The argument is that the government should be able to MAKE courts, not determine what is or isnt legal..... In the system we have right now the government already allows states some, SOME, leeway in deciding what is or isnt legal. "Why not just let the states handle it?"Can you at least try to act like you understood my argument?"I meant to include this (conduct foreign policy) in my original plan but I forgot."Concession. "You want the nation to be able to enforce rules and throw out state legislation as they see fit."Yeah...... If California passes a law that allows discarded fetuses to be sold to restaurants as food, then the government should be able to step in and shut that down, unless your pro-aborted-fetus-consumption....."So you basically want to give the nation any and all power to rip any state power out of its hands and gather it in the national government."My God you really cannot read..... Theres a huge difference between a state POWER and a state LAW, I only advocate the government being able to step in and overturn terrible state LAWS as they see fit, not state POWERS. "You want the nation to be able to collect revenue from the states. I specifically gave this power to the national government in my plan for revenue collection. Therefore, both of us agree on this national responsibility."Thats not what I said idiot, theres no way for the government to ENFORCE the collection of revenue from the states, which is what I was saying. Your plan makes paying taxes to the government seem voluntary. If a couple of hick states in the south simply decide to not pay the government all of the money it requests since your plan doesnt say the states HAVE to obey the governments requests (very likely) then theres no way for the government to enforce the collection of taxes....... And even if you do make it mandatory to abide by the government and pay what they ask, that still doesnt stop states from deciding not to pay because what will the governmetn do about it?"My idea basically is the perfect plan for making the most people happy. No, not everyone will be happy, but it does ensure the majority is happy"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, good one. Under your plan states would be able to deny all sorts of current rights to blacks, mexicans, asians, old people, young people, women, gays and lesbians, the poor, immigrants, and thats just the conservative states..... The majority of Americans dont consist entirely of middle aged straight white men like you think it does, and middle aged straight white men are the only ones who would be unaffected by the new change. Your plan makes only a minority happy, YOUR minoirty. Retarded racist white men. "My idea gives more power to the people"It really doesnt. Your sh*tty idea gives more power to the states to rule over the people in their state as they see fit, not to the people themselves. Your idea gets rid of one big government and instead makes 50 slightly smaller big governments that have no checks or balances on anything they decide to do.