States' Rights V. Nationalism

States' Rights v. Nationalism The debate over states' rights versus nationalism relates to the current political actors, issues, and conflicts; as can be seen through examination of William Jefferson Clinton, the issue of federal funding for public schools, and the conflict between the states and the Constitution over the "Full faith and credit" clause and whether it pertains to same-sex marriages.

William Jefferson Clinton was recently in Norfolk, Virginia to promote what he believes will occur if the GOP's ten year tax rebate is passed. He believes that many Americans would be affected by this drastic cut in federal funds. Clinton's idea is to give the local school districts tax bonds worth twenty eight billion dollars over two years. One may think, "What is wrong with this?" This is just one more way for the national government to gain control over a system that has long been in the hands of the localities. Clinton believes that only the national government can help the localities build new schools. He feels having three thousand trailers in one state, that are used to teach our children in, is not acceptable. This is the case in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Clinton and the Democratic Party are pushing this issue not only because they feel that people will be hurt by these cuts, but also because re-election for many people is approaching. Political actors play to the crowd and express their willingness to give federal aid to the localities only when re-election is approaching, because this aid will just give them one more hidden hand they can use to control the localities.

Federal aid to public schools is a debatable topic in itself. Many people feel that a federal presence is unnecessary. The federal government feels that the money they can provide can be used to build new schools, buy computers, and update textbooks. Many people feel the localities can provide these necessities. There are those localities that cannot provide these things, but that is not