I am at a crossroads. I have been a supporter of states rights because I like State specialization where the people in a State can decide how they want to live instead of the majority of the people in the US or the Supreme Court. With 50 states, you have a potential set of 50 different laws to live under to suit your lifestyle. A simple question. With the advent of the 14 amendment and the trend for a loose reading of the Constitution in favor the the federal government, should the US completely eliminate the states as an autonimous entity from the federal government and make them complete subordinates? Without the benefits of unique States, the inequalities created by different state sizes (population and physical) and the duplicate State and Federal agencies would make one unified government more efficient than a union of "States".
The idea of one government and it being efficient does not seem to work for me. I don't mind states and their. . uhm . . uniqueness but certain fundamental common ground must be made Rocket River
I'll go out on a limb here (why not??) and say that your hypothetical situation couldn't apply to Texas. We joined the US as an independent country that negotiated a treaty before joining that is unique among the states. (not that it helped with the Civil War and it's aftermath) We gave up no territory to the US (they had to buy it) and still have the right to subdivide ourselves into up to 5 states if we so choose. We would have to be dealt with seperately. (ha! so there )
Joe Joe It can never happen. The basis of the constitution and our form of government is a bicameral legislature with one body selected geographically. The state governments of each State are the breeding grounds for federal politicians, the larvae stage for budding beltway boys and girls. The States handle so much that the federal government doesn't, and if you believe they want to rule everything, try filing a federal lawsuit and meeting all the requirements. It ain't as easy as it sounds. The truth is the states each have a history, a structure, and a need. I feel safe saying the kind of change you proposed will not happen in any of our lifetimes.
I'll let John boy, Trader man and the others crucify you for even proposing it. I simply address it as an impossibility, and not wise in any event.
States are a necessary component of our system of government. In most cases, the federal government is relatively slow and lumbering in its movement and when it wields power, it is typically ham-fisted and inefficient. There are many things that need local control, others that are best handled at a city level, and still others need control of a statewide body. You think the government is misguided in its governance of ____________? (fill in the blank) Wait until they have control of the schools, building roads, funding hospitals, and filling potholes. If you think it is hard to get a response from city, county, or state government, you would be in for a rude awakening if everything was controlled federally.
Governments seem to work more efficiently the closer they are to the electorate ( The Lee Brown administration being the exception). While I am a 'one planet, one government' guy when it comes to setting the guiding principles, you have to break down the day to day functions of government into smaller more manageable entities. But why is right that Rhode Island and South Dakota get the same representaion in the Senate as California and Texas? (maybe because we get most of the Presidents)
Because they are a state, just like Texas, and as such should get equal representation in one of the houses of Congress. The House of Representatives is meant to give representation based on population. That way, we have a more balanced government where the population of one state can't just make all the decisions for other states. How would you like it if you lived in Delaware and Texas decided that Delaware was a swell place for all the radioactive waste we could produce? If all representation was based on population, Texas, Cali, and New York would make all of the decisions for the whole country.
Yeah.....let's let the Imperial Federal Government run the country without the states. Sounds like the plot of Star Wars: Episode IV........ Grand Moff Tarkin The whole point of state and local governments is to address needs that can not adequately be addressed by the Federal government, with local solutions tailor-made to the area by local politicians. It reminds me of the Marine Corps, where I always told my men to address things at the lower levels of the chain of command (their corporals and sergeants) before coming to me, the first sergeant with problems. These corporals and lower sergeants were closer to the men and understood their problems than I, who was always doing paperwork (one of the drawbacks of being an E-6, reams of paperwork!). Thus they could solve their problems much easier than the higher ranking guys. Government is no different. The lower the level of government, the better the chance they have for solving your problem.
I'm really surprised by the response. I am just venting over the lack of power in the State governments to handle local problems since all the money is at the federal level. Trickle down government just doesn't work. Maybe not in out lifetime, but the trend is that the States will be as powerful as the Imperial Senate.
A lot of the "trickling money", Joe Joe, is due in part to some states not appropriating money that would get them matching funds. In Texas, for example, the eagerness of the Perry/Dewhurst/Craddick leadership to balance a budget with a $10 billion dollar shortfall without finding sources of revenue... without raising the cigarette tax, for example... caused the Legislature to slash programs that ultimately cost Texas hundreds of millions of dollars in matching Federal funds. In other words, in its zeal to say "we balanced the budget WITHOUT raising taxes", the Governor and his cohorts chose NOT to spend our tax dollars that we had paid to the Federal government. Go figure. It's money that will most likely go to other states. Texas tax money. From our pockets.
I am all for nationalized voting system. I am all for a national drivers licence I am all for national education standards I am all for standardised National medical boards I support local states to keep Laws, but there should a a bit more federal controll to keep them from getting too different and succeding because Texas and vermont are so totally different. I would like to see a way to abolish state taxes, and much of the redundant state government agencies, but rather funnel it all through a federal system operated regionally in each state. states should never go away, because you know as a New Yorker, I never want to be associated with Texas. even though already i am in foreign countries.
It was important to the founders to have a federal government that was considerably weaker than state government. They believed that being ruled from afar was not the proper model for a free society as they had seen close up what happens when the people in the ivory tower have more control than the people in the trenches. We should go back to that model for most things and allow local control back into our system of government.
so would you let each state make its own decision about abortion? or other issues? i largely agree with you...but i think the cat is out of the bag. it arguably was out of the bag from the earliest days of the interpretation of the role of the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court. and then was made effective through the 14th amendment which made states subject to the same rules as the federal government, essentially creating tiny mirrors across the country.
What gets me is the blackmail the Federal government uses to bend the states to its will. Want to have higher speed limits than most of the states? Higher than we want? Higher than, say, Vermont? You say you are as big as France? Too bad. Try it, and we'll withhold your Federal highway funds. You say it's your tax money? Tough.
