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

" The Articles simply unified the states since it would take all the states support in order to ratify the Articles. "The argument was that they were meant to be a temporary transition from former colonies to a more centralized and united country... This argument has been dropped by pro. "Yes, I suppose you could argue that this choosing WHO, but this is still no different than how it currently is."Except the way it is right now is the moderate, middle-of-the-road method whereas letting the states do whatever the hell they want will completely change all of that. States could tax the poor to death or the rich to death or the middle class to death more then they do under the current system" I said simply that the currency is a responsibility left to the central government. This means ALL aspects of currency."Your plan doesnt specify that and clearly leaned towards the US only having a national currency, not over who printed it or not. If your plan is too vague to understand then that means it sucks that much more. "Your only issue with this point is that it may interfere with other states. This would cause an interstate dispute, which is settled by the central government."But your original plan clearly stated that the regulation of commerce is a power left to the STATES, not the national government, so youre argument fails and concedes a glaring problem with your plan " If the state decides on something, that means the majority supports something. The majority will NOT support racism. The majority will NOT support the violation of civil rights."A majority of f*cked up southern states DO support violating civil rights, the last few years alone southern states have vehemently opposed gay rights, illegal immigrants rights, voter rights (via ridiculous ID laws), women's rights (birth control and abortion), and a whole list of other things. The states cannot be left in charge of managing civil rights because it would just lead to a bunch of retarded conservative states to run wild and rebuild the segregated jim-crow law society of the 1920's."However, your plan would almost definitely ensure that civil rights will be taken away on the whim of the federal government."The federal government doesnt take away civil rights you retard, it gives them to people.... Every Supreme Court Case on civil rights for the last 60 years started out with an individual STATE denying a civil right and then the government had to step in and decided it was indeed a civil right. Once again he drops that his plan would allow the states to take away civil rights on a whim, and so the argument is conceded by the pro. " If you go to a federal court, they would be trying to prosecute a person on a law that isn't even existent in the federal government, thus, the person would be found innocent most likely."You have no idea how the federal governmetn works, that is clear to me now. "And what if the fed decides that the state law saying that gun ownership is permitted should be overturned? "Because that would be unconstitutional you dipsh*t.... " I stated that the government has the power to collect revenue from the state. This implys enforcement."Except it doesnt, again. Your vague plan does NOT specify ANY means of enforcement, which means that paying all or even some of what the government demands is once again optional, which will lead to the same problem the Articles of Confederation had. "The states also share the same basic system of the national government, so checks and balances will definitely be present."If you actually could understand what your plan proposes then you would realize that the states would definitely NOT share the same basic system and therfore there would be NO checks and balances. " In many cases, the nation may pass a law that helps New York but disadvantages Texas. In my plan, both can pass laws that benefit them"That doesnt fix the problem that one state's laws could negatively impact the 49 other states though you idiot, so the problem remains unsolved. ===================================================================================Reasons why Pro's plan is as retarded as pro himself:1) States can run wild in deciding who gets taxed and by how much which could cause the rich, the poor, or the middle class to be taxed to death while others walk off scott free of paying anything2) The plan is extremely vague on what the government actually gets to do, and if the states get 'Significantly' more power then the government, then the power of regulating commerce and printing money goes to the states which can only end disastrously3) Pro's plan allows for the blatant abuse of civil rights of blacks, gays, immigrants, old people, young people, etc that pro denies wont happen because he's too retarded to realize it will.4) Pro's plan does not allow the government to establish courts5) Pro's plan allows states to pass wildly ridiculous laws that cannot be overturned. If California made a law that allowed for aborted fetuses to be sold as food, nobody can step in and overturn that law. 6) Pro's plan actually grants so many powers to the national government (conduct foreign policy, establish a military, collect taxes, funding interstate infrastructure, and the vague power of solving interstate problems which could give the national government a mosnterous amount of power), that it does not make the states significantly more powerful. Pro's idea of what the government should control defeats his own resolution that the states should have 'significantly' more power then the national government since he feels the national government should have so many powers in the first place. 7) Pro's plan does not allow for the national government to regulate commerce, which means the states would be free to pass any and all laws that benefit them that negatively affects the other 49 states, which essentially means that in his plan there would be NO regulation of commerce, especially that between statesVote Con