Using either your handout (from class last week) or the Internet, please pick a right of either the individual state's or the nation you feel should be the opposite.
Break it down:
If you feel a specific right of the state should actually be the right of the nation, please list the example and explain your reasoning for the switch.
OR
If you feel a specific right of the federal government should actually be the right of the individual state, please list your example and explain your reasoning for the switch.
*Grading purposes: If your comment is removed from the thread, you will need to post again, as your original attempt was not sufficient. The blogger (Mrs. Buchanan) will not update you on your grades at school nor via email.
Please give the blogger (Mrs. Buchanan) a full school day to review and evaluate posts. Grades will be posted daily on Infinite Campus.
Please do not ask after your blog grade. Use your resources (Parent Portal) to look up specific grades.
***Note from Mrs. Buchanan: I will allow this week to ask questions regarding the blog post as this is new to us all. After this week, you will need to use your deductive reasoning OR come to tutoring to ask questions about the topic.
Good Luck!!!
slavery to me should have been a nation wide (federal)right instead of being a individual states right because slavery caused main conflicts between the signing over of states that influence slavery and states that don't. slavery was more important to me than the other states rights and should have been changed to federal rights in the first place
ReplyDeleteThere might have still been a civil war becuase if that was a federal right then it would force the whole nation to either have slavery or not have slavery and that would cause great upset in the country and possibly in individual states. Therefore i disagree.
DeleteOn a federal (national) level, how would you decide between a slave permitting nation and a nation where slavery would NOT be allowed?
DeleteI agree with Karson,
Deleteif slavery was chosen at the federal level, neighbors would fight. Towns would fight against other towns in skirmishes, leading to battles and eventually still a civil war. in this form there would be many more deathes because it would last longer
Technically slavery was decided upon at a federal level. This is what led to all of the fighting. The Southern states believed the decision belonged to them and not the federal government. So Mr. Hitchcock, it was a federal issue.
DeleteIt wasn't just slavery that caused the civil war, it was states' rights or national rights, slavery was one of the states' rights, states could have decided if they were slave states or not
DeleteSo Garrett, you agree with the south that they had the right to own slaves? Why?
DeleteSarah S, 3rd
ReplyDeletei think that instead of just the state issuing lisences, that the nation should. This way, every time you go to a different state, you wouldnt have to go through traing for that license. For example, if you were to move from Texas to Oklahoma, and you had a drivers license, you would not have to take the test all over again to be able to drive. It would be much easier if the country issued licenses.
Just to note: Not ALL states require you to take a written or driving test when you move to a new state. Almost all require a vision test of some sort, but in some cases this is the only test you will take.
DeleteGood point, however, how will you be able to verify that a new resident has learned all the 'new' traffic laws of their new state if they are not tested on them?
I don't agree that state law isn't letting many schools where clothing of their choice. I've been to three schools where you had to where specific clothing and uniforms. People should be able to express their selves through not only words but also clothing, besides it costs more money to where uniforms and stress on parents to decide which store has the uniforms needed.
DeleteMontavia,
DeleteIs this a states' rights issue or an issue by school?
i think that printing money should be a state right as long as thery print the same money with the same value in each state because if i state is in debt and need money they can immediatly print money instead of haveing to go to the national government to get their money so it would just be a lot easier is a state could print its own money
ReplyDeleteIf they are printing the same money with the same value, what is the point of making it a state's right? Are you speaking only of design artistically?
DeleteIf you made it a states right to print money than the government would have no control over value and quantity
DeleteNice point Ms. Owen. At that point the states would have to compromise on their own to obtain the same value that Mr. Lacey speaks of having.
DeleteI agree with Chesney. If each individual state printed their own money and got out of debt, every state would be overwhelmed with money and it wouldn't longer be something everybody needs.
Deletei disagree with jake. if states could print their own money we would have a really big problem with inflation. like chesney said there would be added dept to not just the states but also to the whole nation.
DeleteI mean dept is one of the main issues in the United States today.
DeleteDebt*
DeleteI think that states should have decided whether or not women could vote instead of the federal government. It may have been a federal matter but it is not the people actually voteing it is the representitives of each state. So, if 1 state let women vote and another did not the state with the women voteing would be at a advantage becuase they would have more people voteing.
ReplyDeleteI agree how would the government know what the women did in a certain state. Due to increased ( this addition the population that had a say in most important matters such as voting.....men) population that could give their say in political matters There would be more people to make the debate more "equal" so to speak.
DeleteBritt B.
Even if the national government didn't know, some of the women in other states that don't allow womens voting wouldn't be to happy if other states did. What I'm saying is that if they were mad they could start a huge argument with the federal government to make it a nation wide thing. I believe that putting it as a states right thing would just break out a huge argument around the country. It should be equal in every state. So it doesn't start an argument between states and the national government.
DeleteNice point Mr. Worthy. Ladies from other states could claim that the federal government was being unfair in not forcing voting rights in their states too.
DeleteI disagree as well because like Karson said, the state with the women voting are at advantage. If one state has an advantage over the others, then it probably would've been changed to federal anyway because the states that didn't allow women voting would think it unfair. Those states would go complain to the Federal government and the Federal government would probably change it to a Federal right. Plus, the country wouldn't want unbalanced voting between some other states especially if it's a big number to a little number.
DeleteI disagree I think women's voting rivhts should be a federal government thing. First off if some states had women's voting and some didn't how would women feel in the states that did not have women's voting. Also if someone from a state that had women's voting ran for some big position in the federal government against someone from a state who didn't could be at a disadvantage in voting. Therefore, I think it's a federal government thing
ReplyDeleteI think the federal government should choose the traffic laws. They can be very confusin for travelers. We shouldn't get a ticket out of state just because they have different traffic laws.
ReplyDeleteEh, they aren't THAT different. Not enough to cause major issues for individuals. Please choose another topic this time.
Delete-Mrs. Buchanan
I would like to say that the spending of the U.S dollar should be decided how to be spent by states rights. RIght now the goverment can spend so much and increase our debt. Let's say that the federal gov. decided to spend money on the construction in New York of a new empire state building. The states can then vote for this idea to effect America in good way or bad. The states should also have the power to use the money in a better way that will make America a better place to live, because us states can do work with the gov. to help the debt, the gov., and America to attract people for buisness work for America and pursuit of happiness. So, I think that the states rights can make where we can help control spending.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ethan but realize that the states could increase the debt because the national gov. is one body and the states are fifty so state spending would increase the debt for ourselves and put us in trouble by raising the peoples taxes therefore erasing the upper class and making the middle class the upper class. Or they will either limmit spending or elimminate consumer markets creating more jobless people to pay tax with money they do not have. So enitially the national gov. does a good and a bad job with spending the U.S. dollar Ethan stated the good in swapping and I said the bad.
DeleteAs long as we spend the money the right way and if the states can help each other to decrease the debt, we will have a fine life with no debt.
DeleteEach state has their own budget for state expenses. The federal government imposes taxes that the states, as well as citizens, send to the nation for use. These funds are then distributed (spent) as seen fit for the betterment of our country.
DeleteCan the states decided the tax rate of shipped goods by the state that sells what that state wants to sell, or does the goverment do the exporting taxes? (Ex: Texas has cattle to sell. The state of Texas makes the shippind cost $200, plus a 20% tax and ships the cattle to England for them to pay the cost and tax.)
DeleteI think that regulating intrastate business should be a a National government power instead of state.Because what happens if we have another school shooting caused by a mental illness. Shouldn't that be a sign saying the National Government needs to stand up make a bill. Regulating Intrastate Business should just be the Nation keeping an eye on all 50 states. Making sure that everything is clear and peaceful ,but there's still need for monitoring the states.Regulating States Business should be a Nation's Rights not a States' Right because some states cannot recover quickly that others can.
ReplyDeleteStefani, regulating interstate business is a national government power. But I do agree that a Nation will help if a state has a fall, the Nation will be there to back the state up.
DeleteI disagree with Stephani. The States should maintain the right to regulate intrastate business. The National Government already regulates interstate and international trade. By the states regulating Intrastate Business, it helps the state maintain its own state economy. If one state's economy is good, it will bring business to that state and allow other states to benefit from it.
DeleteAlyssa what if the states economy is really bad if they need help from the Nation?. Regulating Interstate business should be a National government power. Because if a State is not able to recover from a Natural disaster.
DeleteSo, the federal government should learn to spend wisely, but if a state gets 'in trouble' they should be bailed out?
DeleteThat doesn't give me much faith in the states as individuals. Thoughts?
And it's spelled Stefani people! :)
I think that the National government should be able to change the boundaries of states. What if we entered a new state and they didn't like how small or big it was they could move it around so it would be more equal in the House of Representatives, because the more people, the more representatives, the more land the more people it can hold. Just the opposite if the state is too big.
ReplyDeleteIf a TERRITORY is becoming a NEW state, then they do not have the same benefits as a state. Their boundaries could be negotiated before becoming a state....
DeleteIf they change their mind though after becoming a new state.
DeleteOnce you are an official state, you are legally bound. Changes such as that cannot be made after the fact.
DeleteI think that issuing licenses should be a national right not a state righ because if it was a national right then all the states would have equal ages for giving licenses and so if you move to a different state then you would not have to retake the driving test each time you moved
ReplyDeleteJaqui L 6th
DeleteI agree with kayla because to get a license you have to be a certain age in each state but its really hard when you have to move. Imagine a 16year old that is working really hard to get his licence but it turns out he has to move to a different state and in that state the age to being able to get a licence is different and he has to wait another year. That does not seem fair that the kid has to wait just because of an age. Thats why all states should have the same age for being able to get a licence.
Wonderful point Jaqui!!!!
DeleteI think the right to tax should be a state right. This would allow the states to control how much money they have to give to each county to give to each city so its being controlled by more than one person. However, the fedral government should begiven the right to tax the states based on the number of citizens
ReplyDeleteThe state government might not give the people of the state enough of a tax refund just to keep it for themselves. I, however, believe that the federal government shouldn't make the people of the state pay more then they need to, especially when they're are really poor.
DeleteSo, you are saying income tax, the taxes made on what you earn from your job, should go to the state they live in and not the nation?
DeleteWho would pay for our army and social institutions such as medical programs?
I disagree with hazel,because I don't think the state would be that selfish,and wouldn't give their citizens what they deserve.The state and the nation want progress and security for their citizen so taxes should be shared by both.
DeleteI think that the death penalty should be issued on a federal level. Because if a prisoner did a crime that would deserve the death penalty in another state, but in his own state it is only life in jail then he could break out and do it again.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people find the death penalty inhumane, and if it was a national right to use it, there may be riots or other serious damage done to not only the state but the nation.
DeleteExplain in further detail why there would be possible NATION-wide rioting over this issue please.
DeleteI think that the whole issue of slavery should have been a federal law, it caused so many conflicts & deaths between the Union or North & the Confederacy or the South. We wouldn't have had to go through all of the arguments & wars fought because of the issue. The United States could have just decided whether to allow it or not & that would have been it. It would change a lot, & in everybody's benefit in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIf the United States just decided weather it was legal or illegal, the Civil War would've done a lot more damage to the Nation. If the chose to be freew (Which would likely be the choice) the south would get very angry and declare war until they got their way or just straight out lost. It's the same the other way, but the capital and other important items of our history are located in/near the north, so they can be destroyed or taken over, which would cause even more damage.
DeleteI agree with michaila..it would've prevented lots of death. And if the south tried to destroy items from the North, well the North should have some guards or something to protect the items.
DeleteBut it WAS considered a national issue by the U.S.A. government. The problem came that the southern states did not agree, hence the clash and eventual war.
DeleteI fit was federal the south would ha been angrier and more aggressive when abraham lincoln freed all slaves.
DeleteAt the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, both sides had been at war for 2+ years. I think they were angry and were as aggressive as they could be with the men, munitions and supplies they had.
DeleteMr. Brown, don't wait so long next time to post and you won't be scrambling for a topic.
I think that the national law: May not change state boundaries. In my opinion it should be the other way around, that the state law: should not be able to change state boundaries. Because only the national law should be the only one to change state boundaries. It doesn't sense for the state to be able to change their own boundaries.
ReplyDeleteThe states cannot change their own boundaries either...Post again please.
DeleteShea M. 5th
ReplyDeleteI think the states should be able to have their own army so that they can defend their state if the state gets attacked.
Who is going to attack the state? If the state is attacked as an individual, the NATION would step up to protect. Also, even though states do not have their own armies, armed forces are placed throughout the country instead of being centrally located.
DeleteYou are on the right track, but lets try a different one.
I think that the public health and safety should be on the national side because there are people getting hurt and out of shape by the year.It's not just a state but all of them together.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Catherine. States don't make the money, the country does. The states need to ask the nation for more money when they need it.
DeleteYou cannot just 'print money' whenever there is a need for more cash. We will be sure to discuss this in class, as it is a bit complicated and could be confusing in this forum.
DeleteIf every state had an army then if one was mad at an other state then they would try to have a battle.
ReplyDeleteThis is a statement of fact. Please elaborate if there is a question or supportable opinion.
DeleteI think that each state should have the same amount of electoral college members.So each state can have a fair vote. This its not just the bigger states that really affect the election
ReplyDeletePaul M 3
DeleteI agree with Lane. Just because 1 state is larger doesn't mean it should have more electoral college members. They should all have the same amount of memebers because this makes the elections fair for all states. Just because Texas is bigger than Delaware doesn't mean Texas should have more electoral college members.
In some ways having the federal government decide laws is good; for example they decided slavery was bad. In some cases, however I do not see why states are not able to make their own laws. President Obama is forcing everyone to have healthcare. Also, in some cases it is not that businesses do not want healthcare for their employees, it is that they cannot afford it. The daycare that my grandmother works at is just the case. It is not that her boss does not want healthcare, it is that she can not afford it. If healthcare does get forced the daycare will probably shut down. So, in all, for some laws it is great the federal government decides the laws but if it is a small law that could turn into a big deal if not treated properly, why can't the state decide the law?
ReplyDeleteAndrew H.
I agree with Andrew because if Obama does force health care then the less fortunate people would not be able to afford the health care. So I think that the federal government should decide on laws like that
DeleteLet's remember respect to our elders and our president and refer to him by his official title please.
DeleteI think that sharing the power between states rights and national rights is very handy and useful. Lets say the national government creats a certin currency system. But differnt states dissagree on it. Imagine keeping tons of differnt coins and bills in your pockets,and have them all be differnt values! This is why it is important to have a good balance so most things are fair and worry free.
ReplyDeletei see your point, but, keeping track of all the diffrent currencies from state to state would be a pain. And if you wanted to TRANSFER one currency to another, you might get ripped off
Deleteabout the guns earlier. The state of New York has taken away the right to bear certain arms. But in the constitution it says "The right to bear arms" meaning ALL ARMS. Not just certain arms
ReplyDeleteNot all of the weapons we have today were even an imagination at the time of our nation's founding. If they were alive today, they might even draw the line at some of our modern day weapons. Think of the time frame of this amendment.
DeleteI thing that the state government should be allowed to choose what type/kind of gun to sell inside of their borders because banning the public from using it but then selling thousands to S.W.A.T. teams, just doesn't seem very right.
ReplyDeleteGun control is at the heart of yet another states' vs. national rights argument. It will be interesting to see how it will pan out.
DeleteI agree with Justin. The states should say what gun/shotgun, etc. should be allowed in the state. The National gov. should choose the big No Nos and the state should have more detailed weapons.
DeleteI argree with justin i think the state government should be in control of gun control not the national government because if each state controlled there own gun laws i think it would make more people would be more happy and satisfied but I also think they should be more strcit in krder to protect more people.
ReplyDeleteGun control is at the heart of yet another states' vs. national rights argument. It will be interesting to see how it will pan out.
DeleteI believe that the states should be able to trade with other country's as long as the US gets a fraction (40% or more) of the money made by the trade beteween them.
ReplyDeleteWhy 40%? Would that leave the states enough to make a profit?
DeleteIn the Summer time it gets very Heated outside in Texas. There is a Law that you cannot leave your child alone in the car outside... whether you are in a store shopping,or for any matter. This law is not just in Texas alone, but in very few other states. I think that this should turn into a full union law, protecting any child from a heat stroke and possible death. It would potentially save tens of lives around the United States.And for these reasons, I think this should spread to become a Union Law.
ReplyDeleteI agree with logan because alot of children die because of that. But parents should also think about what they're doing. They shouldn't even have their babies in the car by themselves. Even though, this accident usually happens in the summer time. So, logan is right, this should be a full union law.
Deletei disagree with logan because if the kid is young the parent should take their child in the store or wherever but say if their like ten they can use the airconditioning and keep car running just lock the doors
DeleteI disagree with Kenton some person could just break the window when the kids in the car. It could be anyone. Locking the car won't really help this situation.
DeleteI argee with logan but disagree with astrid parents should think about what they are doing because it is importrant for them not to leave there childern in the cars to prevnet deaths. I think this should go into law to prevent deaths like this from happening.
ReplyDeleteMr. Montgomery,
DeleteI will allow it this time, but next time explain your answer in fuller detail to complete your requirements.
The blog post for this week is now closed. Anything posted after this message is not eligible for a grade. A new blog post will be up either Sunday night or on Monday.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great start!
-Mrs. Buchanan
Thomas Stonewall Jackson -
ReplyDeleteServed in the CSA from 1861-1863
Rank was Lieutenant General
He commanded the army of north Virginia
Was shot in the arm , and had It amputated,but
Died 8 days later ( May 10th 1863 )due to complications of pneumonia
i dont understand what you mean
ReplyDelete