I'd leave the country before it ever got to the point where 99% of the country were hellbent on denying some basic right to any one citizen on strictly moral grounds. As it is it's only a slightly majority. o_O
But this doesn't relate a whole lot to states' rights, so... States rights are good, at very least in theory, and we're pretty sure they're good in practice, too.
As a Chinese American who moved here in 1994 at the age of 4, I do not see how state rights benefit our modern society of airplanes and cellphones. Please fill me in on how state rights improve our standard of living in 2007. Am I simply ignorant of history?
A tad. However, as someone who interned at the Massachusetts' State House, I can tell you that the states are inept at ruling effectively. Nowadays, "States Rights" basically mean "we want slavery" and other views that bigots know are not held by the majority. They just want their little island of ignorance.
I'm from Illinois. That is the most truthful truth in existence.
If you think state govt. is inept you should check out the federal govt.
I have thirty million dollars that says the federal government can be really effective if it wants to be.
As a Chinese American who moved here in 1994 at the age of 4, I do not see how state rights benefit our modern society of airplanes and cellphones. Please fill me in on how state rights improve our standard of living in 2007. Am I simply ignorant of history?
A tad. However, as someone who interned at the Massachusetts' State House, I can tell you that the states are inept at ruling effectively. Nowadays, "States Rights" basically mean "we want slavery" and other views that bigots know are not held by the majority. They just want their little island of ignorance.
I'm from Illinois. That is the most truthful truth in existence.
If you think state govt. is inept you should check out the federal govt.
I have thirty million dollars that says the federal government can be really effective if it wants to be.
I have a couple billion on it fucking up BAD when it wants to.
It wouldn't matter if 99% of the population wanted to outlaw blacks or gays or something, we can't do it.
Uh...
I couldn't think of a good example. My point was that the very definition of "inalienable" rights protect even 1 person even if 299,999,999 want to take the right away.
there are no inalienable rights. Just rights that you gotta have most of the state govts. and a big portion of the senate/congress agree to get rid of.
As I said earlier, states rights today is more about how the states get to spend federal money. people who are for states rights like block grants because it allows the state to decide how its spends its money whereas they dont like categorical grants because categorical grants have strict limitations on how the state spends the money.
I've always wondered how it would be to live in a much smaller country. For instance, if the state I live in (Virginia) were to suddenly become a country. I feel like, as a virtue of the reduction in size of the entire country down to this smaller size, people would be more inspired to be involved in their government. When you are one of of 300 million and your city is one of how many thousands, it is difficult to get motivated about government. I think if the area of the state I lived in all of a sudden became a third of the "country", me and my fellow citizens would be much more concerned with how our government operated. All of a sudden every bill we vote for make a serious impact on us. There would also be a much stronger sense of national unity. I feel some kinship with fellow Virginian, fellow southerners to an extent, sort of to east coasters, but people from california or alaska? They may as well be from the moon. They're so culturally and physically removed as to be from another country. I'd rather see the United States Government be more like an EU.
This is just my fantasy.
On the subject of incompetent local government:
States have no power and thus the competition for those spots in office isn't exactly too fierce. Being a state representative is a thankless job with only the rare reward. In my area of the state, the reps seem to do it as an ego boost, not as a duty to the public.
Also, it's a bit disingenuous to compare say, California and Rhode Island to England and France. England and France are two entirely separate nations, not just political units, and they have been culturally and linguistically separate since the fall of the Roman Empire. California and Rhode Island (and every other state within the union for that matter) have much, much more culturally and linguistic homogeneity than England and France, and they have never been meaningfully separate - aside from distance and local government.
Um...California was part of another sovereign nation just 150 years ago. You're kind of stretching the word "never" there. Or did you think that the decision to name all the major cities there in Spanish was a coincidence?
And while California and Rhode Island might be more homogeneous than England and France, I bet I could find a dozen pairs of sovereign nations that they are less homogeneous than. Having lived in about five different states (in three or four different regions), and having spend extended periods of time in several others, I can say that the differences within this nation can be astounding.
As I said earlier, states rights today is more about how the states get to spend federal money. people who are for states rights like block grants because it allows the state to decide how its spends its money whereas they dont like categorical grants because categorical grants have strict limitations on how the state spends the money.
I'm actually not a huge fan of what I like to call the "federal funding bat." Taking money from the states' citizens (and thus reducing their potential tax base) then holding it ransom unless the states pass laws that the federal government wants but doesn't have the Constitutional authority to pass? Uncool. Sometimes it works out okay, of course. Then again sometimes you get a de facto federal drinking age (which may or may not be good, I say not) or abstinence-only sex education (I think most of us will agree that's not soo great).
Anyway, yeah. States' rights. I do believe there is still a place for them. I just believe that there are two different usages...one is the idea that the federal government should be limited in scope, and that some things are best left to more local levels. The other is just code for thinking blacks shouldn't have been recognized as human beings. The former I actually agree with. Basically unlike the latter group I don't think the states should be able to violate the civil/human rights of their citizens, but that there are all manner of things that they should be able to determine for themselves.
EDIT: On a side note, since it's a common misperception: the reinstatement of set speed limits on Montana highways actually didn't have anything to do with federal funding. I think that might have been threatened, but wasn't what did it. Basically the state supreme court decided in a case that it violated some due process clause in the state constitution; that the law was too vague to be enforced fairly and evenly, or some such. Hence, back to numbers rather than "Reasonable and Prudent."
Feel free to look into the details, I might be a smidge off...but the point is that this specifically was decided at the state level.
I think federal funding may have been at stake in our enacting an open container law (up until just a couple years ago, you could still drink while driving up here, as long as you were under the limit), but I'm not sure. If so, I'd say this would be an example of the FFB being beneficial...but at the same time, that still doesn't mean I agree with its use.
Also, it's a bit disingenuous to compare say, California and Rhode Island to England and France. England and France are two entirely separate nations, not just political units, and they have been culturally and linguistically separate since the fall of the Roman Empire. California and Rhode Island (and every other state within the union for that matter) have much, much more culturally and linguistic homogeneity than England and France, and they have never been meaningfully separate - aside from distance and local government.
I would say that California has more in common with France than it does with Alabama.
Contemporary power struggles seem to have less to do with state versus federal and more to do with federal versus corporate. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that shift. And the notion of state rights still makes for a handy prop in political debates.
Also, it's a bit disingenuous to compare say, California and Rhode Island to England and France. England and France are two entirely separate nations, not just political units, and they have been culturally and linguistically separate since the fall of the Roman Empire. California and Rhode Island (and every other state within the union for that matter) have much, much more culturally and linguistic homogeneity than England and France, and they have never been meaningfully separate - aside from distance and local government.
I would say that California has more in common with France than it does with Alabama.
I would agree.
And I'll reiterate something already touched on: Alabama has as much say in the Senate as California. They also have more votes per capita in the Electoral College than California. We may like to think that the respect of states' rights is the only thing keeping rural America from having to catch up to the modern utopias like California and New York (or wherever)...but that road goes both ways. It does (to some extent) protect the more progressive areas from the bass-ackwards ones as well.
mcdermott on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Contemporary power struggles seem to have less to do with state versus federal and more to do with federal versus corporate. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that shift. And the notion of state rights still makes for a handy prop in political debates.
What about medical marijuana? Transportation? No Child Left Behind? Just because issues don't make the news, doesn't mean they don't exist. There still is a healthy relationship between State rights and the federal government.
Also, the issue with differences in states is fundamentally an anti-federalist argument. They argued that it would be to the benefit of the people to have local governments representing local policies and ideals. Nonetheless, Hamilton makes a much more convincing argument that a federal government, despite all the differences in the states, would be to the benefit of all. Would not a larger government be able to provide a better flow of commerce, protection of borders, and the assertion of foriegn policy? Federal policy in recent years has subverted power from the states, but devolution will soon take care of that.
Posts
But this doesn't relate a whole lot to states' rights, so... States rights are good, at very least in theory, and we're pretty sure they're good in practice, too.
I have thirty million dollars that says the federal government can be really effective if it wants to be.
I have a couple billion on it fucking up BAD when it wants to.
Amendments? Prohibition? Ringing a bell?
there are no inalienable rights. Just rights that you gotta have most of the state govts. and a big portion of the senate/congress agree to get rid of.
This is just my fantasy.
On the subject of incompetent local government:
States have no power and thus the competition for those spots in office isn't exactly too fierce. Being a state representative is a thankless job with only the rare reward. In my area of the state, the reps seem to do it as an ego boost, not as a duty to the public.
Um...California was part of another sovereign nation just 150 years ago. You're kind of stretching the word "never" there. Or did you think that the decision to name all the major cities there in Spanish was a coincidence?
And while California and Rhode Island might be more homogeneous than England and France, I bet I could find a dozen pairs of sovereign nations that they are less homogeneous than. Having lived in about five different states (in three or four different regions), and having spend extended periods of time in several others, I can say that the differences within this nation can be astounding.
I'm actually not a huge fan of what I like to call the "federal funding bat." Taking money from the states' citizens (and thus reducing their potential tax base) then holding it ransom unless the states pass laws that the federal government wants but doesn't have the Constitutional authority to pass? Uncool. Sometimes it works out okay, of course. Then again sometimes you get a de facto federal drinking age (which may or may not be good, I say not) or abstinence-only sex education (I think most of us will agree that's not soo great).
Anyway, yeah. States' rights. I do believe there is still a place for them. I just believe that there are two different usages...one is the idea that the federal government should be limited in scope, and that some things are best left to more local levels. The other is just code for thinking blacks shouldn't have been recognized as human beings. The former I actually agree with. Basically unlike the latter group I don't think the states should be able to violate the civil/human rights of their citizens, but that there are all manner of things that they should be able to determine for themselves.
EDIT: On a side note, since it's a common misperception: the reinstatement of set speed limits on Montana highways actually didn't have anything to do with federal funding. I think that might have been threatened, but wasn't what did it. Basically the state supreme court decided in a case that it violated some due process clause in the state constitution; that the law was too vague to be enforced fairly and evenly, or some such. Hence, back to numbers rather than "Reasonable and Prudent."
Feel free to look into the details, I might be a smidge off...but the point is that this specifically was decided at the state level.
I think federal funding may have been at stake in our enacting an open container law (up until just a couple years ago, you could still drink while driving up here, as long as you were under the limit), but I'm not sure. If so, I'd say this would be an example of the FFB being beneficial...but at the same time, that still doesn't mean I agree with its use.
And I'll reiterate something already touched on: Alabama has as much say in the Senate as California. They also have more votes per capita in the Electoral College than California. We may like to think that the respect of states' rights is the only thing keeping rural America from having to catch up to the modern utopias like California and New York (or wherever)...but that road goes both ways. It does (to some extent) protect the more progressive areas from the bass-ackwards ones as well.
Both were handed over to Austrian powermongers with little struggle?
Yes.
What about medical marijuana? Transportation? No Child Left Behind? Just because issues don't make the news, doesn't mean they don't exist. There still is a healthy relationship between State rights and the federal government.
Also, the issue with differences in states is fundamentally an anti-federalist argument. They argued that it would be to the benefit of the people to have local governments representing local policies and ideals. Nonetheless, Hamilton makes a much more convincing argument that a federal government, despite all the differences in the states, would be to the benefit of all. Would not a larger government be able to provide a better flow of commerce, protection of borders, and the assertion of foriegn policy? Federal policy in recent years has subverted power from the states, but devolution will soon take care of that.