It's is amazing how little regard many posters have for the role of the states

[CK_John]

versus the federal government.

Many think everything can be solved with a federal law, when the process is really 50+ solutions or 50,000 solutions when dealing with school districts or voting districts.

The system works because it was crafted to avoid a here today, change tomorrow society.

So remember what may happen in Vermont may not get a chance in Iowa.

[Bjorn Against]

1. Who are these many who think everything can be solved by federal law?

I have not seen anyone on here who thinks everything can be solved by a federal law, where are all these posters you are complaining about?

I do think we should have federal election standards, there is no reason a state like Florida should be able to manipulate their election system to force a George W. Bush on the nation. Supporting federal election standards is not the same as saying everything can be solved with a federal law however.

[CK_John]

6. Just look at the ACA and get rid of the grand jury threads for examples.

[Bjorn Against]

11. I have not seen anyone in those threads say there can be a federal law for everything

There are lots of threads on the ACA and the grand jury, and yes there are people who want the federal government to intervene in certain situations especially when people's civil rights are being denied. Wanting the federal government to intervene in a case like the Ferguson case where the local government is abusing its power is not the same thing as saying a federal law can be passed for everything. Your OP is a straw man argument.

[left_of_center]

13. +1 nt

[sabrina 1]

21. When people's Civil Rights are at stake that IS a Federal Issue. Since when did states

have the right to ignore the Law of the Land? Was there a Constitutional Amendment giving States the right to return ignore the Civil Rights Amendment?

Are you saying that the US Constitution is trumped by the whims of State Legislators?

[JaneyVee]

2. Didn't Founders write that Fed trumps States?

Not saying states don't have a role, but Fed should intervene in civil rights etc.

[el_bryanto]

3. Founders wrote that part confusingly on purpose

Because many of the states, particularly southern slave-holding states, wanted to ensure that their unique institutions, like slavery, wouldn't come under interference by a large federal government.

Local government is a fine thing in many respects - the closer the government is to you the more you can influence and understand it. The counter point though is that communities are often blind to the injustices in them.

Bryant

[Adrahil]

33. Local government is also the most vulnerable to corruption and machine politics n/t

[CK_John]

4. Well the SCOTUS last yr gutted the voting provisions and put states back in control.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. The states check the fed and the fed checks the states.

Obviously some things that impact the Union as a whole, i.e. tariffs, foreign policy, currency, weights, interstate commerce, etc. are strictly the purview of the fed.

[Recursion]

30. The founders very deliberately avoided coming down either way on that

It took Lincoln and a few hundred thousand deaths to seal that.

[branford]

31. No, they did not.

Our constitutional system reserved some powers to the federal government, some to the states, some to the people, and some are shared or concurrent. This is the essence of federalism and guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

[CherokeeDem]

5. Considering we are one nation...

... and one with a transient population, we should have standardized laws regarding drivers licenses, voter registration, any situation common to all. I also believe school curriculums should be standardized. Not teaching to the
test but one determined by educators, not the right wing or the left wing.

There are certain issues that could remain the decision of the states, such as speed limits that need to be adjusted cording to local needs, water regulations, but I don't think the states should deal with the situations common to all.

[CK_John]

8. That was Hamilton idea but Burr put and end to that.

[branford]

34. We are one nation comprised of 50 different and important states

who have their own interests and rights, hence the United States of America.

Without the basic constitutional comprises that guaranteed certain state autonomy and rights, we would not be one nation at all.

The level of homogeneity you desire would require serious, and largely unpopular, constitutional revision.

Additionally, be very careful what you wish for. Homogeneity does not necessarily mean progressive or liberal laws will predominate. I doubt many here would want the gun laws of Vermont or Texas or the abortion restrictions of much of the South and Midwest to be the rule everywhere in the country. Do not forget that the White House and Congress are sometimes controlled by Republicans.

[DetlefK]

7. That's the basic problem of the US: too many states-rights.

Why did the Weimar Republic in Germany fail? Because it had no parliamentary safeguards against outright sabotage. Dozens of political parties and neverending bickering.

That's how you get 50 different laws about homosexual marriage, 50 different laws who gets to buy a gun, 50 different laws whether pot is legal, 50 different laws concerning elections...

Neverending secessionism, driven by a neverending hatred towards the government of your very own country.



What if Obama proposed a federal ID-law?
"Never fear voter-fraud again! From now on every voter will have to present an ID and only one kind of ID: This one I'm holding here!"
The Republicans would ditch their undying voter-fraud-fearmongering and rail against the idea of not being able to micromanage and manipulate the elections in their home-turf.

[CK_John]

10. Remember it's the government you got not the government you want.

[Bjorn Against]

14. If this is a democracy we can work to make it the government we want

[CK_John]

17. Well it is a republic, a representative democracy.

[DetlefK]

22. It's about partisanship.

For example:

In Germany, seats in the Lower Chamber are awarded to each party according to the number of electoral districts, plus an offset to correct for their share of the national vote (to prevent a pure winner-takes-all).
=> Small parties have a chance.
=> Germany has 2 major and about 4 minor parties. (And about 20 really, really tiny parties.)
=> If you want the seats to get anything done, you almost always HAVE TO ally with another party and compromise.
=> The kind of scorched-earth-policies as employed by the Republicans are unthinkable, because you will inevitable NEED the votes of other parties some time in the future.
=> Less political polarization.

[Man from Pickens]

18. Weimar failed because of monetary policy

they destroyed their currency by printing to much of it, then people couldn't buy anything with their wages, priming them to accept anyone who promised to change the situation

sound familiar?

[DetlefK]

25. You are mixing up the years.

The great inflation in Germany ended 1923. (And they had to print that much money because they had to pay massive reparations they couldn't afford.)

[Bluenorthwest]

19. voters in my State do not have to present ID to vote

and we would find it unacceptable to be required to show it and also to be required to check it. This would cause the end of our well liked and very successful election methods. Voter fraud is a virtually nonexistent thing.

[NightWatcher]

12. If it were up to my state, there'd be no healthcare for the sick, school or food for the children...

Here in Floriduh, we rely on federal minimum standards when it comes to things like education, food and social welfare programs, some healthcare policies.... There are also other states nearby that would have instituted slavery last election if it were legal and within the state's rights to do so. We are far more connected and are not a loose confederation of states.

[CK_John]

15. I'm not a big fan of states rights but I'm a big fan of "the process". If you don't

understand the process you never get any thing done.

[sendero]

16. If it weren't for the Federal govt......

.... institutional racism by force of law would still be in effect in many if not most states.

That dog won't hunt.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. some people don't understand why local prosecutors are highly dependent on local police

and therefore shitty at convicting them.

those people need a reeducation in reality.

[Ykcutnek]

23. No one thinks that, but in many cases it is their only hope.

Some states have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century.

Hell, some would improve by entering the 20th.

[99Forever]

24. Excellent!

Another freakin' lame excuse for the Corporate Lackeys to do nothing for the working poor of this Nation.

[bravenak]

26. Because of the Civil War?

You know to some people 'States Rights' really means 'Confederacy'. No thanks.

[CK_John]

27. I know we tried it twice and it failed both times.

[TBF]

28. A new low on DU -

The glorification of states rights.

[CK_John]

29. You are total wrong.

[jwirr]

32. One area that I have had personal experience in this is welfare. When I first had to get help for my

disabled daughter and my other two children (due to divorce) welfare was controlled by the states. But it was well known that some states paid a lot less than others. I lived in one of the good states (Iowa) but if you lived in some states in the south they got very little at all. I assume that the thinking regarding welfare has not changed much today with the conservatives.

For that reason the federal government took over state welfare programs in what was called AFDC. It let the states administer the programs but the laws governing the program came from the feds. Each state had to follow the laws or risk losing the subsidy from the feds. What happened was that each state had a formula that was used to figure out the monthly amount that a client received. States were different but it was based on cost of living in the state. Iowa remained one of the better states and we did not get cut. Some of those other states went from receiving $12 a month to at least a percentage of the cost of living.

In this case the Feds did help.