State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

Explanation:

I've heard multiple times from multiple sources various arguments relating to the more basic argument that states should have more autonomy in making decisions and laws.

Or something like that (I don't fully understand this bit).

However, what set me thinking and prompted me to make this poll was some late-night conservative talk show host (Rusty something?) that I heard say something along the lines of "abortion law should be made on a state-by-state basis - I think about 30+ states would have no limits and the rest (mostly Southern and Midwestern states) would ban it in part or in whole."

I then got to thinking what other areas of law and such this might apply to.

For example: Gun control or lack thereof. Currently states (to the best of my knowledge) have a lot of autonomy in that area, with some states recognizing other states firearm permits and some not, in a complex web of laws.

Would it be better if there were a basic federal standard that all states had to meet at least? A maximum limitation? Should all firearm permits be accepted in any state?

Or Gay Marriage: Currently states have much autonomy in that area - is this acceptable? Should it be federally allowed or banned? Or should it stay at the state level?

Which brings us back to abortion: Should it be decided at the federal level, as currently, due to a supreme court ruling that dictates a minimum standard for all states to follow? Should it be decided at the state level, with a mixture of different laws from state to state?

Health Care: Should federal-level or state-level laws govern it?

Or any other issues you can think of - are there any for which you would definitely favor state-level lawmaking over federal...Or vice versa?

Do you favor ANY federal level laws, or would you rather all decisions be made at the state level, with only, say defense being handled at the federal level?

Or the opposite: Only federal-level laws, leaving just very minor decisions to the states?

-----------------

Personally, I favor decentralized and small government, so I tend towards as few as possible federal, minimal state, and more specialized as you get down to the county and township (terms used in PA) levels, with an overall mandate to have as few laws as possible.

This is not reasonable in our current system, to my understanding, but it's how I would prefer it.

Each of the things that you listed should be addressed on thier own as to whether it should be a state or federal issue. I favor small government be it federal or state. But that doesn't mean that I think that everything should be left up to each state. Or that everything should be left up to just the federal government.

Short version of the things you listed:

Abortion: Federal.
Marriage: Federal. But perfer that it be left entirely up to the individuals.
Healthcare: neither...should be up to the individual and thier doctor. The only thing that the Feds should do is make sure that the drugs being used are not dangerous. States should stay out of it.
Gun control: There shouldn't BE any gun control. We should have available to us the same guns that is used in the military baring missiles. The biggest reason that we have gun rights is because it is the citizens that are suppose to keep the government in check. And we can't do that with .22's.

The 10th Amendment is clear and easy to understand it says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But this has been encroached upon by the Federal Government with vigorous enough opposition from the States as a whole.

The same thing in reverse has happened to the power of the President, which has expanded without the needed challenges from Congress.

These and many more reasons are why I want a new strong leader to come to office and force the issue that the Founders got it right and we have been screwing it up a little at a time for 235 years.

Kal'Stang said:

Each of the things that you listed should be addressed on thier own as to whether it should be a state or federal issue. I favor small government be it federal or state. But that doesn't mean that I think that everything should be left up to each state. Or that everything should be left up to just the federal government.

Short version of the things you listed:

Abortion: Federal.
Marriage: Federal. But perfer that it be left entirely up to the individuals.
Healthcare: neither...should be up to the individual and thier doctor. The only thing that the Feds should do is make sure that the drugs being used are not dangerous. States should stay out of it.
Gun control: There shouldn't BE any gun control. We should have available to us the same guns that is used in the military baring missiles. The biggest reason that we have gun rights is because it is the citizens that are suppose to keep the government in check. And we can't do that with .22's.

Click to expand...

This is why I always put an "other" option on my polls - because invariably, someone's opinion doesn't fit an option exactly.

But I didn't intend that my 4 examples would limit the scope of discussion - rather I put them there because they were the first that occurred to me.

Are there any other issues you can think of on which you disagree with the current setup and would prefer more or less federal or state control of? Or no control?

However, on the four I posted, I tend towards agreement with you on the second two with perhaps disagreement on the first two - mostly the marriage.

The abortion thing I'm not too clear on, as I've tended to avoid the issue since it's mostly people in entrenched and strongly shielded positions shelling each other with shells packed full of propaganda.

However, the argument for it being a state-level issue seemed to make sense - unless we're considering it from a women's rights issue exclusively in which case much of any limitation would violate those rights. Meh.

Councilman said:

The 10th Amendment is clear and easy to understand it says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But this has been encroached upon by the Federal Government with vigorous enough opposition from the States as a whole.

The same thing in reverse has happened to the power of the President, which has expanded without the needed challenges from Congress.

These and many more reasons are why I want a new strong leader to come to office and force the issue that the Founders got it right and we have been screwing it up a little at a time for 235 years.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I misunderstand, but it appears that your statement regarding too much power in the executive branch is in conflict with your desire for a strong leader. Unless you mean a congressman that leads his party or something...

You know what I've never understood. A lot of proponents of the states rights argument argue that the states and local government are more responsive to the people and less likely to abuse their power. However, history shows otherwise. Segregation was endorsed by several southern states and had to be broken by the hammer of federal power.

Also a lot of state and local laws that have conflicted with the Bill of Rights have been overturned via the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of Incorporation. Prior to 1890s states and local governments could limit the rights guaranteed you by the Bill of Rights because it only applied to the federal government, however that has changed due to Incorporation.

The most recent example, which conservatives should like, is McDonald Vs. Chicago where the City tried to outlaw gun ownership and the Supreme Court though the due process clause of the 14th Amendment stuck that law down.

I do think there should be a balance, I mainly wanted to address the ideal that state and local governments are "good" or "not corrupt" and the federal government is "bad' and 'corrupt" and useless.

U.S. Socialist. said:

You know what I've never understood. A lot of proponents of the states rights argument argue that the states and local government are more responsive to the people and less likely to abuse their power. However, history shows otherwise. Segregation was endorsed by several southern states and had to be broken by the hammer of federal power.

Also a lot of state and local laws that have conflicted with the Bill of Rights have been overturned via the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of Incorporation. Prior to 1890s states and local governments could limit the rights guaranteed you by the Bill of Rights because it only applied to the federal government, however that has changed due to Incorporation.

The most recent example, which conservatives should like, is McDonald Vs. Chicago where the City tried to outlaw gun ownership and the Supreme Court though the due process clause of the 14th Amendment stuck that law down.

I do think there should be a balance, I mainly wanted to address the ideal that state and local governments are "good" or "not corrupt" and the federal government is "bad' and 'corrupt" and useless.

Click to expand...

State gov. is in no way immune from corruption - I live in PA, so I should know :2razz:

But that is one reason I support minimal gov. on all levels - to limit the scope of the nearly inevitable corruption.

Problem is, a corrupt gov is more likely to try expanding - since that obviously helps those who are corrupt.

The Mark said:

But I didn't intend that my 4 examples would limit the scope of discussion - rather I put them there because they were the first that occurred to me.

Are there any other issues you can think of on which you disagree with the current setup and would prefer more or less federal or state control of? Or no control?

Click to expand...

I could make a list and state what I think of each one a mile wide. Which is the problem. The list is so huge that it would become meaningless. Which is why I said that each issue should be addressed on its own. I will add one more to your list though. That of agriculture being limited by the federal government on how much they can grow. IMO that should be a state issue as a state is far more limited in land than the federal government. However at the same time I think that the federal government should be involved only for reasons of safety. IE make sure that the food is safe for consumption.

See, I figure that many issues are far more complex than many people realize. For example my suggestion on agriculture. Many people would just consider that they (the feds) shouldn't do it and leave it entirely up to the states...never even thinking that food safety is a national concern when it comes to food in this day and age of being able to transport things from point A to point B in a matter of a few days...if not hours. As such it deserves both the state and the feds working in tandem. One working on one thing while the other works on the other.

The Mark said:

However, on the four I posted, I tend towards agreement with you on the second two with perhaps disagreement on the first two - mostly the marriage.

Click to expand...

The reason that I listed marriage as a federal deal is because I whole heartedly believe that marriage is a right that should be applied to ALL equally. And states are willing to segregate people on this issue.

The reason that I listed abortion as a federal issue is because it is an extremely hot topic that needs resolved across the board. And the only ones that can possibly do that is the feds. Now I'm not saying that even if the feds took a stand on that issue that it wouldn't be contested either way. But at least we would have a central location to effect change on it instead of going through years of lower courts or sytems to effect that change. Its just too big of a deal to be left up to the states.

The Mark said:

The abortion thing I'm not too clear on, as I've tended to avoid the issue since it's mostly people in entrenched and strongly shielded positions shelling each other with shells packed full of propaganda.

Click to expand...

As one that is pretty much always commenting in the abortion section I can tell you that you are absolutely correct here. I'm sure that even I do it...though probably unawares that I am. I try not to as I value independent thinking.

Kal'Stang said:

I could make a list and state what I think of each one a mile wide. Which is the problem. The list is so huge that it would become meaningless. Which is why I said that each issue should be addressed on its own. I will add one more to your list though. That of agriculture being limited by the federal government on how much they can grow. IMO that should be a state issue as a state is far more limited in land than the federal government. However at the same time I think that the federal government should be involved only for reasons of safety. IE make sure that the food is safe for consumption.

Click to expand...

I suppose I should have made my poll options more general and asked for explanation on each possible answer...Meh, at least it sparked some thought.

Kal'Stang said:

See, I figure that many issues are far more complex than many people realize. For example my suggestion on agriculture. Many people would just consider that they (the feds) shouldn't do it and leave it entirely up to the states...never even thinking that food safety is a national concern when it comes to food in this day and age of being able to transport things from point A to point B in a matter of a few days...if not hours. As such it deserves both the state and the feds working in tandem. One working on one thing while the other works on the other.

Click to expand...

That seems to make sense.

Kal'Stang said:

The reason that I listed marriage as a federal deal is because I whole heartedly believe that marriage is a right that should be applied to ALL equally. And states are willing to segregate people on this issue.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

I was looking at the legal-marriage issue from the perspective of it (or so I understand) being designed originally as a way to influence the population - encouraging marriage for stability reasons and the like, I think.

In that sense, I suppose you could say it's in both the federal and individual states interest to promote or discourage it depending on their goals.

Although I suppose that could be accomplished through adding incentives (tax breaks and the like) at the state level, while allowing all marriages (or disallowing, depending) at the federal.

Kal'Stang said:

The reason that I listed abortion as a federal issue is because it is an extremely hot topic that needs resolved across the board. And the only ones that can possibly do that is the feds. Now I'm not saying that even if the feds took a stand on that issue that it wouldn't be contested either way. But at least we would have a central location to effect change on it instead of going through years of lower courts or sytems to effect that change. Its just too big of a deal to be left up to the states.

Click to expand...

I was thinking more that if some states banned it and some did not, those persons who believed it should be banned (in part or in whole) would probably tend to move or stay there, whereas those who believed it should be completely unregulated (in part or in whole) would move to those states that allowed it.

Hmmmm...

Kal'Stang said:

As one that is pretty much always commenting in the abortion section I can tell you that you are absolutely correct here. I'm sure that even I do it...though probably unawares that I am. I try not to as I value independent thinking.

Click to expand...

My personal views on the subject contradict each other in some ways, and since IMO there is no good answer to the issue, it's not really one I get into.

Which is one reason I thought the state-level bit would be better - people are so incensed over it that having the option of living in an area where it was banned or allowed (depending) might help cool some off...nah.

Personally I like the thread the way it is.

Now while I'd love to respond to your post fully I'm afraid I have two problems in doing that. 1: My reply would end up being off topic. Which I don't want to do to this thread. (I know it would because I was writing up a full reply when I realized what I was doing lol) 2: its almost 4am here...I need to get to bed. lol

Night!

The Mark said:

Would it be better if there were a basic federal standard that all states had to meet at least? A maximum limitation? Should all firearm permits be accepted in any state?

Click to expand...

You must remember that the Federal government has only certain enumerated powers; powers it does not have are retained by the states.
This is the basis for the 'state's rights' issue. Of course, the states do not have the power to violate the US constitution, and in certain cases both the states and the federal government share power, but the cruix of the biscuit is the idea that the powers not delegated to the federal government remian with the states.

PzKfW IVe said:

You must remember that the Federal government has only certain enumerated powers; powers it does not have are retained by the states.
This is the basis for the 'state's rights' issue. Of course, the states do not have the power to violate the US constitution, and in certain cases both the states and the federal government share power, but the cruix of the biscuit is the idea that the powers not delegated to the federal government remian with the states.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

But is that what you think best?

The thing about state sovereignty is that isolated existence within a single state is becoming a rarity. The rules changing when one crosses a state line... that makes no sense. Nearly all commerce now is interstate, and much of it is international. A person's life and family can take them to multiple states within the space of a week. Students change states to go to college all the time. States are largely obsolete. They muck up presidential elections and foster the "all or nothing" dominance of the two main parties. Local representation is handled easily at the county level, for example. Collecting a group of counties or districts together into a state... it's a useless gesture. We are too intertwined in this country to divide ourselves up into states, and to give them so much control. Crossing a border, within the same country, should not be such a drastic change.

I think states should have the power to make their own laws... with one exception. No state should be allowed to make a law that circumvents constitutional protections. For example, the right to privacy and reproductive choice is not specified in the constitution per se, but has been declared a constitutional right by SCOTUS. The same with civil rights, equal opportunity, and anti-discrimination laws.

Examples:

* California has legalized medical marijuana statewide. The feds have decided they will not respect the California law, and will enforce federal laws within the state. That is a clear violation of State's Rights since there is no constitutional basis.

* Several states have legislated harsh anti-abortion laws making it difficult or impossible for women who wish to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. That is a clear violation of the SCOTUS constitutional right to privacy and reproductive choice, and those laws should be fought by federal authorities under constitutional grounds.

* Left completely to their own devices, many states in the south would still be using segregation and other discriminatory laws. Only the power of constitutional protection allowed the feds to force these states to overturn the laws and the practices.

I'm all for the feds going after states that try an end-run around the constitution based on petty political ideology. I'm just plain pissed when the feds do an end-run around states rights based on the same damned thing.

The Mark said:

Indeed.
But is that what you think best?

Click to expand...

The more local the government, the better it represents its people.

Aside from that, you cannot simply dismiss the frole of the states within our system of government - ultimately they hold power over the Federal government

DiAnna said:

I think states should have the power to make their own laws... with one exception. No state should be allowed to make a law that circumvents constitutional protections

Click to expand...

Guess what?
That's exactly what we have today.

* California has legalized medical marijuana statewide. The feds have decided they will not respect the California law, and will enforce federal laws within the state. That is a clear violation of State's Rights since there is no constitutional basis.

Click to expand...

False. CA can have whatever loaw it so chooses in this regard; whatever the CA law may be, Federal law still applies. That the Federal government will enforce federal law in CA does not in any way infringe on the rights of the state of CA.

Have to ask:
1994-2004, the state of Oio had no 'assault weapon' ban.
Should the Federal government not have enforced this ban in the state of Ohio?
Was doing so a violation of the rights of the state of Ohio?
Apples-apples...

* Several states have legislated harsh anti-abortion laws making it difficult or impossible for women who wish to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. That is a clear violation of the SCOTUS constitutional right to privacy and reproductive choice, and those laws should be fought by federal authorities under constitutional grounds

Click to expand...

This depends entirelyon the law in question. Roe v Wade states that there is a compelling state interest in the state regulation of abortion past the 1st trimenster; any state laws effective after that point do not (necessarily) violate the constitutional rights of the mother.

* Left completely to their own devices, many states in the south would still be using segregation and other discriminatory laws. Only the power of constitutional protection allowed the feds to force these states to overturn the laws and the practices.

Click to expand...

States do not have the right to violate the Constitution. The 14th amendment keeps these things from happening.

I feel we would be better off if states had maintained their rightful powers given by the constitution.

Instead of the constant left vs right battle in Washington that encompasses the entire nation we would instead have 50 possibly very different states which would allow US citizens to better find a state that suits them. For example we could have a very liberal California where gay marriage, marijuana, and a social program friendly state, and in Texas we could have a very different outcome all together.

This could also have a positive outcome by comparing laws of each state and their outcome instead of a blanket federal law that everyone has to abide by. This removes other possibilities and outcomes that may work better for the people. Why approach a problem with a single solution when we could have different 50 attempts to see which works better. Instead we have a federal government with a single solution mindset and if the outcome is not as successful as we hoped we just throw more money at it and hope it goes away.

I'm going to try and sum something up here when it concerns the fed vs the states.

When the founding fathers first made the bill of rights there were those that did not want to make it. Not because they thought that people didn't deserve rights or that the federal government shouldn't protect individual rights. But because they were afraid that by doing so they would put a limit on what would be considered Rights. It is my opinion that this is exactly what has happened.

For example marriage. They never even questioned the fact that people had a right to marry. It was one of those things that was so obvious that it should have been idiotic to even question, much less put in the BoR. Now what do we have? People saying that marriage is not a right. Even asking (telling) people to show them proof that it is written somewhere in the Constitution as a right.

Now with all of that said I believe that anything that could be considered a Right (whether it is in the Constitution or not) should be handled strictly by the federal government in the form of protection. Anything that has to do with safety from others or inanimate objects should be left to the federal government with peoples rights over ruling all else. The other things that the government should handle are issues which are so huge as to be impossible to apply equally across the whole country on a state by state basis. For example, abortion. Everything else should be left up to either the individual or the States.

Kal'Stang said:

I'm going to try and sum something up here when it concerns the fed vs the states.

When the founding fathers first made the bill of rights there were those that did not want to make it. Not because they thought that people didn't deserve rights or that the federal government shouldn't protect individual rights. But because they were afraid that by doing so they would put a limit on what would be considered Rights. It is my opinion that this is exactly what has happened.

For example marriage. They never even questioned the fact that people had a right to marry. It was one of those things that was so obvious that it should have been idiotic to even question, much less put in the BoR. Now what do we have? People saying that marriage is not a right. Even asking (telling) people to show them proof that it is written somewhere in the Constitution as a right.

Now with all of that said I believe that anything that could be considered a Right (whether it is in the Constitution or not) should be handled strictly by the federal government in the form of protection. Anything that has to do with safety from others or inanimate objects should be left to the federal government with peoples rights over ruling all else. The other things that the government should handle are issues which are so huge as to be impossible to apply equally across the whole country on a state by state basis. For example, abortion. Everything else should be left up to either the individual or the States.

Click to expand...

I view the marriage bit in two sections.

Religious or independent marriage - as in, two people who wish to be joined and thus are. Ceremonies can be involved, but there are no legal aspects.

Legal and/or financial marriage - The union of two people's financial and related assets into one unit, sealed by a legal document (marriage certificate).

For the former, no restrictions.

For the latter, it's up to whomever is in control of marriage certificate issuance to determine who is allowed to legally marry and what, if any, tax breaks or other financial incentives are involved.

Currently, it's on a state-by-state basis. For example NY just recently allowed gay couples to acquire marriage certificates (or so I understand).

Ok, the way I see it, states should hold almost sole jurisdiciton. I also feel that anything major the citizens themselves should vote on. (i.e. If a state or federal government wants to change gun law in any way then the citizens of that state, or country if it's a change to federal restrictions, should be allowed to vote on it.)

That being said, the marriage thing should be on a much smaller level. People with marriage licenses should not be forced to marry anybody at all. Say, a Baptist church should not be forced to marry a gay couple. Though, it should be readily available for anyone to be married at a courthouse or town hall.

DashingAmerican said:

Ok, the way I see it, states should hold almost sole jurisdiciton. I also feel that anything major the citizens themselves should vote on. (i.e. If a state or federal government wants to change gun law in any way then the citizens of that state, or country if it's a change to federal restrictions, should be allowed to vote on it.)

That being said, the marriage thing should be on a much smaller level. People with marriage licenses should not be forced to marry anybody at all. Say, a Baptist church should not be forced to marry a gay couple. Though, it should be readily available for anyone to be married at a courthouse or town hall.

Click to expand...

I think you may be operating under some misunderstanding.

Currently, no church or minister is forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

And to my knowledge, no church or minister is going to be.

Such would be a blatant violation of the constitution.

Federal government should only make laws in areas authorized by the Constitution... nothing more...

ludahai said:

Federal government should only make laws in areas authorized by the Constitution... nothing more...

Click to expand...

Now that is a dumb statement.. The constitution is the law of the land.. Exectly where doesn't the constitution apply?? Where exactly doesn't the constitution authorize it's application??

Perhaps you should do some research and nothing more.. Just a thought..

The Mark said:

I think you may be operating under some misunderstanding.

Currently, no church or minister is forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

And to my knowledge, no church or minister is going to be.

Such would be a blatant violation of the constitution.

Click to expand...

I know. I was just making examples.

DemonMyst said:

Now that is a dumb statement.. The constitution is the law of the land.. Exectly where doesn't the constitution apply?? Where exactly doesn't the constitution authorize it's application??

Perhaps you should do some research and nothing more.. Just a thought..

Click to expand...

There are multiple ways in which the constitution has and will be interpreted.

Some include the thought that unless an action is authorized specifically in the constitution, the federal gov is not allowed to get involved.

Some tend towards the opposite - that if an action is not specifically prohibited, it's allowed.

Even specific clauses have different interpretations depending on who you ask - like the 2nd Amendment for example.