Classical debate. This is about the USA btw.

Why?

I feel that they should have almost equilibrium, leaning toward federal. This is because of a lesser of two evils situation. With a strong federal gov't, there can be tyranny, but with strong state governments, differences in political preference of the state can cause differences in laws of the states.

Fang wrote:I feel that they should have almost equilibrium, leaning toward federal. This is because of a lesser of two evils situation. With a strong federal gov't, there can be tyranny, but with strong state governments, differences in political preference of the state can cause differences in laws of the states.

I don't think that's possible. You would need to have one stronger than the other or both would be weak.

For example: If let's say the Federal gov and state gov make opposing rules...which one overrides the other?

Federal. But it would have to be a checks and balances system like our federal gov't had.

state.

because they are closer to the people they have jurisdiction over.

You mean "has"?

Anyways, I'll be the devil's advocate and say State...like what Jefferson supported.

My argument: The US was created by an agreement by the different states, so you cant undermine their sovereignty.

I say state, even though in the past there has been many problems with it. I think that the vote of the state should matter more than some dude sitting in a random state.

Federal should be able to overrule anything that state does

IMO

Why?

cuz i said so

You forgot to add /thread

>_>

u mirin bro?

Anyways...


I say state, because each state is sovereign.