“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” -Winston Churchill
While the founding fathers may have intended for a more powerful state government, the states have demonstrated time and time again that a national government is more efficient at dealing with the issues that plague the nation. A stronger National government is especially necessary when it comes to the regulation of interstate commerce, civil rights, and the management of currency.
“Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.” – Edward Abbey One of the biggest flaws in running a stronger State government is the fragmentation of power that would result. Every state would have the freedom to create and enforce the laws that they designed, much to the detriment of transporting information or commerce. The supreme court sided with the national government in the court case Gibbons vs. Ogden (1824), stating that the national government had the power to regulate interstate commerce, according to the commerce clause in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution. Giving …show more content…
While minority rights are respected in the constitution, the civil rights movement goes to show that the tyranny of the majority still exists .Allowing the states the power to decide over civil rights would inevitably lead to a decision that encroached upon (or downright dismissed) minority rights. In the case of Margaret Sanger, other rights can also be affected by state’s interpretation of the constitution, that are more easily protected by the strength of the national government. A national government that is prone to favor minority rights over the tyranny of the majority is a healthier, stronger, and better