So, if we are going to leave important decisions to the States

[Horse with no Name]

because that is more politically convenient than actually taking a stand on anything (so now I am guessing the rumors that everytime there was an important vote in the State Senate in Illinois that Obama went to the bathroom, but I digress...)

What does this really mean?

Is this setting up an actual physical divide of the red/blue states?

Does this mean we are going to break down ideological lines?Civil War?

I mean seriously. Right now, I can live in Texas because there is some semblance of federal laws protecting me from the whims of these batshit crazy republicans...but if those protections cease to exist...I'll be on the first train out.

I have a minor in History but am trying to remember why these are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA...why we federalized...:eyes:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed45.htm

>>>snip
The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us.

[csziggy]

1. The US already went through a test of leaving human rights to the states

Back in the mid-1800s. It got us one civil war. We won't survive another one, though sometimes I wonder if we deserve to remain as a country at all.

From an earlier post of mine:

Why do we have a federal constitution with a bill of rights?

After all, if the President believes, "The states should determine for themselves how best to uphold the rights of their own citizens," maybe we don't need a set of documents to insure equal rights across all the states. Maybe each state should consider individual rights independently. :sarcasm:

That statement, if really from Obama, is the most discouraging comment I have heard from him, even though it is in the context of a victory for equal rights for one of our most harassed groups. No wonder women's rights are being taken away state by state with no resistance from the federal government.

Human rights should not be determined state by state. If it is a RIGHT, it should be equal across ALL our states.

[Horse with no Name]

2. And the state attacks on the abortion providers

even though abortion is legal under federal law...nothing is being done to the states that are making it impossible to provide the services.

THESE are the functions of the federal government and the laws should be upheld by the DOJ...because I care a hell of a lot more about women being denied a federally protected medical procedure than I do about John Edwards being prosecuted.

[David Gill]

6. Federalism is a gentleman's agreement

Well you know, what's forcing the states to do anything? I guess the President could move troops in to enforce a Supreme Court decision, a la Brown v Board of Education, but how often is an issue big enough that a President is willing to do that?

[csziggy]

7. Exactly, and these are the issues one which I am most disappointed

In the Obama administration, in the DOJ, and in the Democratic Party. They are not standing up for women, they have not stood up for marriage equality, they are not standing up for minorities who are being targeted in the "illegal immigration" boondoggle.

I had really hoped that Obama, with his past in community work and with a background in constitutional law, would restore the rule of law in this country and support individual rights. I've been underwhelmed by the change.

Oh well, that does not prevent me from being happy about the steps towards marriage equality even though it will not be really equal until it is extended across the entire country.

[Angry Dragon]

3. Perhaps Obama is not up to the task of being president

He surrounds himself with friends and big business and listens to no one else.
He talks pretty and stands on the sidelines most of the time
When was the last time he stood and really fought for something, even if it was something you did not agree with??

[Horse with no Name]

4. You mean besides wars and bailing out bankers?n/t

[RickFromMN]

5. Is it still true the federal tax system redistributes money from blue states to red states?

Please see URL, as an example of this assertion:
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/18/red-state-moochers-federal-taxes-favor-those-who-complain-the-most-about-federal-taxes/

If this is still true, the red states won't abandon the union.
The red states would be abandoning a gravy train.

We should pass a federal law forbidding redistribution of wealth from blue states to red states.
Republicans are opposed to redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the middle class and poor.
Republicans should be opposed to redistribution of wealth between states.

I am curious. Is there a red state/blue state relationship with oil found in the state?
I think of Texas, Alaska, North Dakota as being red...and having oil.
I think blue state California has oil, but I don't know how much. Is there any correlation?

Do oil rich states use oil tax revenue to reduce or eliminate income or sales or property taxes?

Do oil rich states vigorously tax oil taken from the ground in their state,
while vigorously opposing federal oil taxes?

I'm too tired to do the research. Would be interesting to know the answers to these questions.

[jberryhill]

8. On state issues, yes

There have long been differences among states on marriage laws. In some states, first cousins can marry, and in some states they cannot. States are all over the map on ages too.

[Horse with no Name]

9. Yes. Each state has its own differences on marriage laws

Which is why the Full Faith and Credit Clause exists...too bad federal law overrides gay marriage.

So again...a couple married in New York...will not have their CIVIL RIGHTS upheld in the majority of these United States.

[jberryhill]

10. Actually, that part of DOMA needs to be judicially tested

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Loving v Virginia 1967

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

[girl_interrupted]

11. Obama's parents marriage would not have been recognized

if left up to a state Legislature, in those days. I wonder if that ever crosses his mind.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. good question, on a whole range of issues

"I wonder (what) crosses his mind"

[timtom]

12. Why the US became federalist?

Probably over the protestations of Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and (probably) Thomas Jefferson.

[CanonRay]

15. If we'd left it to the states

we'd STILL have slavery.