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

1. Actually that is very, very true. I have an AP US history teacher and a textbook that prove my point. The Articles simply unified the states since it would take all the states support in order to ratify the Articles. Don't believe me? http://history.state.gov... http://history.howstuffworks.com... 2. (this merges your second and third points) Who said that the states can choose WHO to tax? The states can only choose HOW to tax. The states will be able to choose the method and the percentage. States can choose to have a progressive method if they wished. Yes, I suppose you could argue that this choosing WHO, but this is still no different than how it currently is. 3. I said simply that the currency is a responsibility left to the central government. This means ALL aspects of currency. 4. 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. 5. You seem to assume that racism will continue in the south becasue of what happened fifty years ago. 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. 6. If the state supports a right, then give them the right. If not, don't. The federal government should not decide what is a right and what is not. 7. Maybe my system may be taken advantage of, but your idea will definitely be taken advantage of. In the US, civil rights are given more than they are taken away; I believe that you will not have to worry about violations of civil rights anyway. However, your plan would almost definitely ensure that civil rights will be taken away on the whim of the federal government. 8. But what if the same person commits the same crime in two different states? The federal government can break the tie. The state still gets to choose the punishment. 9. If the state makes the laws, then they should enforce them and make the courts to try the criminals. 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. 10. Why would a state pass a law unless the majority of the state supports it? Your arguments are all extreme and irrational. 11. And what if the fed decides that the state law saying that gun ownership is permitted should be overturned? States are not some corrupt senseless bodies like you think they are. They are smaller sections of the country that more closely address the issues of the people in the state than can the nation. 12. I stated that the government has the power to collect revenue from the state. This implys enforcement. 13. I will leave the issue of who is happier to the voters. 14. The people are in the states aren't they? The people elect the government officials who represent their views. The states also share the same basic system of the national government, so checks and balances will definitely be present. 15. A state has a continuous climate, geography, and economy. A state can more closely address the economic issues than the nation. 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. Vote for me!