States should have more power than feds

The U.S. Constitution was not the first proposed document to govern our country. This first document was actually called the Articles of Confederation. These articles were flawed because they lead to states having too much power and essentially no unity. The articles essentially created a loosely aligned confederacy. [1] So with this being said, the con will present his counter argument and rebuttal to the pro. I will discuss each of the Pro"s points in a line by line manner; basically address each of the arguments. The first claim made by the pro actually has no basis as Federalism is the concept that of a stronger central government and actually against the notion of any state having the slightest political power.[2] The pro also provides no basis as to why the Federal Government and the States should have each of the powers and merely gives each some power without justifying either entity should receive these powers. Unlike the pro the con will actually give basis to these points. Upholding Currency-The Federal Government should have this power due to them having overreaching authority and the only entity being able to enforce the exchange rate. If the government doesn"t have this power than this leads to states or even banks printing their own currency, but this interferes with trade in the nation due to some currency being worth more or some having no worth at all. This has happened once in the nation history.[3] Creating a Military-This is a power the Federal Government should have due to foreign conflicts needing a unified state for military operation and organizations. The state"s can create militias and such in the case the nation"s military turns against them. Regulating Interstate Trade and Foreign Trade-I will group these two points together since they stem from the same foundation. These points are called for in the Commerce Clause in U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.[4] This point deals with all forms of trade and separates into three separate clauses called: The Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause and the outdated Indian Commerce Clause. These clauses justify why trade should be monitored by the government. Upholding Education-States actually do have the right to uphold education through a state education agency (SEA). Here is a list of the state education agencies of the U.S. [5] Upholding Healthcare-If it is up to states to set health standards then one state will obviously be unhealthier than another. Healthcare should be left to the Federal Government when it comes to things like national healthcare or policies such as that. Regulating elections-States already have the power to regulate elections at the local and state level. The reason states should not have the power to regulate Federal Election is that at the federal level can influences other beyond the state conducting the vote. I would like to highlight an example from the recent presidential election in which Florida had multiple problems.[6] Conducting Marriages-States don"t have a right to conduct marriages simply because states do not grant any right pertaining to marriage, the federal government does. Since the Federal Government confers benefits upon married couples or couples with children this is why this point must go to the Government. So at this point I have used expanding on the powers the Federal government should have and actually given basis to these points. Regarding the powers state governments should have I have proven how either the state already possess the power or why the state cannot have the power. Now onto the supposed advantages of granting these states these powers. Inexpensive-Logically speaking this point does not make sense. The lower level government does not equal lower taxes since the operation will be the same cost. Another point I would like to make about this supposed advantage is that taxes do not work in the way the pro would like to think. Most states knows what is best for them-I agree with this statement, but the example used for this advantage was completely flawed. The Federal Government would not pass a law that is not viable in most states. I also do not see how this is an advantage and not merely common sense. Can be regulated by the feds-I agree with this point but I also think this point conflicts with the theme the pro is painting. The pro aims for a weak Federal Government yet would like the Federal Government to have the final say in all matters. I also agree with both Disadvantages. The disadvantages are exactly why the Article of Confederation was replaced by the Constitution. The states had too much power and were not unified against any threat. I would also like to note that this is exactly what the pro has to prove as the Resolution states should have more power and not equal or less. The pro has to prove how this can happen, especially when the con has disproved the majority of powers the pro wished the states to have or even the fact they already have that power. So the con cannot see any compelling arguments as to why states should have more power than the Federal government, just an argument on what powers they should have and how beneficial these powers are. Thank you [1]- http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]- http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]- http://www.bloomberg.com... [4]- http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]- http://www.schev.edu... [6]- http://www.nodeju.com...