• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we abolish the States? (read post before voting please)

Should we abolish the States? (read post before voting please)

  • Yes.

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • No.

    Votes: 61 91.0%

  • Other.

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • Total voters
    67
Kal'Stang

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, I'm not talking about the United States of America. I'm talking about all the States that are with in it. Idaho, NY, Main, etc etc. Make this all just one nation under one government. In all but name it pretty much is that way anyways. States actually have little power anymore. The Federal Government can over ride them pretty much anytime that they want. Despite the 10th Amendment which pretty much everyone now a days knows is all but useless as it's never actually enforced.

There could be some advantages to it. Such as all taxes going towards the federal government instead of being split up between the States and the Feds. After time goes on it would probably even get rid of the ideology of "my state is the best!" and all that goes with it such as bigotry and hatred of those from other states. (and yes, I admit, that is something which I partake in when it comes to places like California and NYC) Another positive that I could think of is that our representatives in both the Senate and Congress would have to be elected by the whole US instead of just their states. This would probably help get rid of politicians that simply should not be there their entire lives. It would also certainly help prevent gerrymandering of voting districts as those could easily be done away with. This would also get rid of the electoral college way of voting.

I'm sure that there will be those opposed to this. I'm more interested in just how many people would be for it.
 
There are reasons for cities, counties, and states...rather than just one political entity.

I live in New Jersey...so I would benefit greatly from such a move...but I still would oppose it, although I doubt anyone would actually take the idea seriously.
 
Against it.

America was founded on the basis of a bunch of states forming a union. Not a country that happened to have some states in it.

That is why she is called the United States of America.


Also, the larger the government, the more corrupt it almost always is. If anything, the federal government should be smaller and give more of it's powers to the states...not the other way around.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There are reasons for cities, counties, and states...rather than just one political entity.

I live in New Jersey...so I would benefit greatly from such a move...but I still would oppose it, although I doubt anyone would actually take the idea seriously.
Click to expand...

I agree, there are reasons for cities, and counties. Not so sure about States anymore though since they have no real power. What States are and are not allowed to do hinges greatly on the what the Federal Government says and does. One area that this can be seen in most explicitly is in illegal immigration. States that try and stem it due to the federal government not doing it the way they should be gets lambasted and attacked by the current pro-illegal government due to immigration policies only being with in the purview of the federal government and then on the flip side of the coin states that create sanctuary cities are completely ignored even though they are violating the same thing as the states that try and stem illegal immigration.
 
DA60 said:
Against it.

America was founded on the basis of a bunch of states forming a union. Not a country that happened to have some states in it.

That is why she is called the United States of America.

Also, the larger the government, the more corrupt it almost always is. If anything, the federal government should be smaller and give more of it's powers to the states...not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I agree. Only problem is the Feds are never going to give up their power to the States and the States have almost no power as it is. I have no doubt that with the way our Federal Government is right now, and no change in it in the foreseeable future, they will continue to chip away at the power that the States DO have and gain more and more power.
 
NO. The states are as much a part of the USA as the people are and to attempt do so would not get even out of the haters box - let alone to first base.

And to be really up front here - I do NOT think this is a serious proposal in any way shape or form. Its an attempt to argue about what is perceived as federal government over reach especially when policies identified as "liberal" are enacted and the rightwing is unhappy. Case in point the entire civil rights revolution and the law as it applies to African American voting and exercising the same basic rights as white have.

States are unique and have cultural and social qualities that no law could ever change even if you managed to end them as political entities. It is one of the things that make us who we are and they are NOT going away.

Lets face it folks, we are ONE nation and the fact that we have been moving to ONE character and ONE people and even ONE set of national laws that in some cases have surpassed local laws and traditions - thats just the way it is in trying to make the American Dream and the promise of the Declaration and the Constitution applicable to all - no matter what provincial bigots or wanna-be authoritarians may reign in some local backwater or state.

And that is a good thing as Martha Stewart used to say.
 
Should we abolish the States?
Click to expand...

no, it's a decent setup. states are allowed to govern local issues, while larger issues such human rights are guaranteed by a federal framework. when a state tries to get too backwards, the federal government is there to stop it. sometimes it takes a while, but the system usually works eventually.
 
Helix said:
no, it's a decent setup. states are allowed to govern local issues, while larger issues such human rights are guaranteed by a federal framework. when a state tries to get too backwards, the federal government is there to stop it. sometimes it takes a while, but the system usually works eventually.
Click to expand...

I am thinking the same.
What does DC know about rural VA, or rural MS know about NYC living? Some issues are best haggled out locally, and we do have oversight if need be.
We do have our hit and misses right now, but overall, it works pretty well, so as long as federal law is observed and local laws are respected.
I would leave the frame work as is, but would hope for better representation. That is what they are for, right? If not, vote them out.
 
Lovebug said:
I am thinking the same.
What does DC know about rural VA, or rural MS know about NYC living? Some issues are best haggled out locally, and we do have oversight if need be.
We do have our hit and misses right now, but overall, it works pretty well, so as long as federal law is observed and local laws are respected.
I would leave the frame work as is, but would hope for better representation. That is what they are for, right? If not, vote them out.
Click to expand...

i agree with most of this. i would, however, support more federal oversight in some areas, especially elections.
 
States are an outdated asymmetric system of cronyism and rights denialism. Time to jettison the concept.
(we can keep the commonwealths though ;) )
 
no. just because the 10th has lost purview , doesn't mean the states don't have real power.
According to the Constitution they are sovereign, just like the feds and we the people. SCOTUS can always change even stare decisis.

Besides the concept of co-sovereignty is tantamount to even mounting any challenge to current fed'l over-reach.
At least leave that in play. Without co-sovereignty there is no possibility of federalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

^ Federalism in the United States
 
If we were to rewrite the US constitution then most would prefer that it include more individual and state power even less federal power. Using the fact that the federal government has taken extra-constitutional powers already to convince us to simply throw up our hands and say "just give it all away" is not going to go over well.

Changing the United Staes of America into the Peoples Republic of America is not going to happen peacefully.
 
It'd be better to abolish the country.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, I'm not talking about the United States of America. I'm talking about all the States that are with in it. Idaho, NY, Main, etc etc. Make this all just one nation under one government. In all but name it pretty much is that way anyways. States actually have little power anymore. The Federal Government can over ride them pretty much anytime that they want. Despite the 10th Amendment which pretty much everyone now a days knows is all but useless as it's never actually enforced.

There could be some advantages to it. Such as all taxes going towards the federal government instead of being split up between the States and the Feds. After time goes on it would probably even get rid of the ideology of "my state is the best!" and all that goes with it such as bigotry and hatred of those from other states. (and yes, I admit, that is something which I partake in when it comes to places like California and NYC) Another positive that I could think of is that our representatives in both the Senate and Congress would have to be elected by the whole US instead of just their states. This would probably help get rid of politicians that simply should not be there their entire lives. It would also certainly help prevent gerrymandering of voting districts as those could easily be done away with. This would also get rid of the electoral college way of voting.

I'm sure that there will be those opposed to this. I'm more interested in just how many people would be for it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. We should restore states rights, and pare the fed behemoth down to constitutional levels. Good grief, what a horrible idea.
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
i agree with most of this. i would, however, support more federal oversight in some areas, especially elections.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I should have said fed oversight instead of just oversight. Sorry.
 
the original ten amendments that make up the US constitution are ten restrictions on federal power. dissolving the states would destroy the nation, and even if it survived, it would be a farce no different from any banana republic.
 
Voted no.

It makes much more sense to re-allocate the duties of the State and duties of the Federal Government, as a means to end duplication of agency or service. For instance, hand Education back to the States and end the Federal Department of Education. Perhaps in exchange, hand the DOT to the Federal Level. Something along those lines were we reduce the tax burden from having multiple levels of government by reducing how each level functions but the onus would be on the Federal level to determine first what they are Constitutionally charged with handling as best applied to modern times. That said, the last thing we need is a more centralized power trying to run the nation as if Chicago or Detroit is similar to rural Wyoming or Vermont.
 
What difference would it make if states were eliminated?
 
No, how would you figure the House and Senate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom