Derwood

Wanted to start a Pub Discussion on the issue of State vs. Federal rights, particularly when it concerns laws relating to rights (abortion, gun ownership, gay marriage), taxes (state income tax, state sales tax) and voting regulations (in national elections specifically).

I'd like those who strongly believe in State rights to defend the position, with the only restriction being that you can't use "that's what the founding fathers/framers envisioned" as your reason. I want to keep the discussion focused on the here and now.

I, for one, am not terribly enamored with the increasing of State's rights, particularly in areas like abortion. I also believe that national elections should be completely normalized, both in the primaries (get rid of the different means of voting [primaries vs. caucuses, etc.] as well as the differences between the GOP and Dem voting [percentile vote vs. "all or nothing" delegate assignments] and Super Delegates. I also want to normalize the manner that votes are cast in national elections, whether that be nationwide touch-screen balloting, Scantron, or whatever.

dksuddeth

my opinion, and i know you dont want 'framers intent' stuff, but even the constitution is written to limit the central government. It provides them with a limited set of powers and the 9th and 10th Amendments leave everything else to the states or the people respectively. Now, that should not be taken to mean that the states can override the US constitution at whim or prayer. Each state entered the union completely accepting the US constitution as the law of the land and it should remain that way.

The rights of the people are paramount and the first responsibility of the governments, both fed and state. Everything else is limited to allowing the state to regulate it's business while protecting the rights of the people. This SHOULD mandate some uniformity throughout the 50 states according to the USC, while leaving intact some individuality with how a state conducts its internal business.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Cynthetiq

A great topic! Thanks! I was just in Gettysburg and that's obviously one of the biggest issues central to the civil war.

I'm a big proponent of State's rights. There's 50 of them and you get to pick and choose where you want to live in order to achieve the "pursuit of happiness."

It's hard to not get the "founding fathers envisioned" because the Constitution is VERY specific as to what powers the Federal government was granted. If it wasn't a stated power it isn't theirs and belongs to the states.

So, a global marriage law is not within the realm of the Constitution, it would have to be an amendment and go through the entire amendment process also very specific process.

The way that I live in NYC has no bearing to how someone in Alaska lives or Texas. We may be similar because we have a cultural thread of TV, movies, books, and internet, but our day to day is very different in how we interact with people and the land around us.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

That's like 6 discussions.

Abortion: this shouldn't be a state right. It's been established by Supreme Court ruling, if states don't like it they can secede.

Gun ownership: as much as it pains my liberal bones to say this, the right to bear arms is an established right enumerated in the Bill of Rights and reinforced by the Supreme Court. The states should not have the right to ban guns at all, and only certain gun controls should be allowed.

Gay marriage: I know it seems like the only way to win, but this also shouldn't be a state right. Either all people should be able to get married or the federal government should only allow civil unions for all people. A marriage in one state should be recognized by every state, in case you're away from home when you need to visit a SO in the hospital or in case you're adopting from out of state.

I'm not sure what you're asking about taxes.

I disagree with the electoral college. I know the founding... errr those guys that were around in the 1700s believed firmly that the populace was way too stupid to make the right decision, but that didn't stop us from putting loads of responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the ignorant masses. Either you trust the people or you don't. I don't trust them, but I trust the alternative even less. And I'm still pissed about Gore. Don't expect me to get over that. Ever.

Derwood

Only asking what value (if any) you guys put in the states setting their own tax rates, both on the income end and the sales end.


My problem with some concepts of state rights is that a state is no more homogeneous in its beliefs or priorities than the nation is. It's why I don't think abortion, gay marriage, etc. should be decided on a state level; the "tyranny of the majority" is just as likely on a state level as a national level.

I also don't like the idea of our country being comprised of 50 individual entities that are defined solely by (sometimes) arbitrary borders. At the risk of sounding jingoistic, I'd like the country to be unified on most issues, and I'd like some consistency when I move state to state.

The idea that "if you don't like the laws of your state, you can just move" is overly simplistic and naive; I'd say the majority of US citizens do not currently have the means to simply up and relocate just because they don't like a particular law on their state's books.

Slims

I don't believe we are in danger of 'increasing' states rights. They have had the rights all along, we are only re-recognizing some of the ones the federal government has taken over the years.

Like it or not the federal government was intended to be very weak with regard to internal affairs. The states were essentially sovereign nations bound together into a loose federation for common defense, etc.

I still feel that model is appropriate....I feel governing should always be conducted at the lowest possible level. Each successive level of government should only handle the spillover...projects that include multiple states, supreme court appeals, etc.

Everything else should be at the state level or lower, mostly lower.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Cynthetiq

People move from country to country to have a better life or quality of life. I moved from CA for a number of reasons one of which the CA politics suck I moved to NJ. My parents moved from CA as well to Nevada also because of the politics and the taxation.

I didn't like the laws of my county it had blue laws so the stores were all closed on Sundays the only day off I had. I moved to another county. Eventually I didn't like the laws of NJ and moved to NY.

My family had a business in NY and NJ was attracting businesses with tax breaks, many businesses including bankers moved to NJ.

Housing and health codes for food makers vary from state to state. Why should I pay extra for a house that needs to withstand tornadoes in earthquake country or vice versa?

As far as consistency, you're getting it. You drive the same types of roads, you spend the same currency, you don't have a VAT or nationwide sales tax, you have minimum standards of fuel efficiency and safety. There's a miminum wage law that the feds set and states are welcome to exceed those requirements, just like the pollution standards of vehicles sold in CA are higher than other states.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dc_dux

There was a huge victory for states rights this week, care of...guess who?

....that socialist big government guy in the WH.

Obama overturned Bush's "preemption" policy that used federal regs to override and block (preempt) the enforcement of state laws on the environment, health, public safety and other issues.

One can only wonder how the "states rights" wing nuts will shoot this one down....particularly in light of a recent Supreme Court decision that questioned the Bush policy by ruling that federal preemption regs cannot and should not prevent consumers from pursuing legal recourse under state laws.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Derwood

It seems to me that I often hear "State Rights!!!!!" being bandied about whenever an issue comes up that someone disagrees with. Abortion? That should be a STATE decision. Gun control?

The thing that's blowing the lid off of that strategy is gay marriage, which is using the idea of state rights to gain a foothold.

Polar

-- My high school and college American History courses say you are incorrect.
The whole idea behind the Electoral College was to ensure that the larger states did not have undue influence over policy that would impact the smaller states.

The whole idea of the union was that the states would remain as autonomous as possible with minimal government entanglements and oversight.

Without the Electoral College, Politicians would campaign in the heavily populated states and neglect the rest. States like Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Kansas, Idaho and their citizens would NEVER be taken into consideration.

That would also mean that political decisions coming out of Congress and the White House would be geared mainly to placating those concentrated areas and the rest of the country would be written off.

Politicians would shuttle between CA, FL. NY, IL and a few others and the rest would be ignored. A large swath of America's population would have no voice in government.

The Founding Fathers make a wise choice.








"And I'm still pissed about Gore. Don't expect me to get over that. Ever. "


-- Al Gore, VP to one of the most popular presidents in history, duringa time of prosperity and relative peace should have cake walked into office. Florida should not have been a make or break for him, period.

I have no problem with how Florida turned out. His "count every vote" idea was shown to be a crock the moment he tried to keep the absentee military and overseas votes from being counted.

News agencies, TV and press paid millions to conduct their own recounts and found that Big Al lost fair and square.

But the thing that strikes me the funniest is that if the loser had just managed to carry is home state, the outcome of Florida would have been moot.

Al didn't make it to the show because he lost in his...own...home...state. Priceless.

---------- Post added at 09:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 AM ----------





-- So, just to be clear...
If the Supreme Court had decided that it was up to the individual states to set their own laws on abortion, you would say they were wrong.

If you are going to use the Supreme Court as proof of a justification for one position...

Same with 'the voice of the people.'

If the majority votes for a specific law (and it isn't found unconstitutional) then it is ridiculous to decry the process and beg the courts to overturn it.

Especially if you (by 'you' I mean people in general) used the 'the people have spoken' election results to prove that other issues are rightfully legal or illegal in the past.


Case in point: CA and Gay Marraige.
I get a little tired of the "This issues transcends all others" argument to say it should not be a state decision. It is a matter of perspective.

The majority of people who voted in CA chose to keep Gay Marraige illegal....the people have spoken....and the interests groups went absolutely APE.

But if it had been the other way around and the majority had decided that Gay Marraige should be legal, these same interest groups would have said, "the people have spoken" and they have decided what they want. That makes it legal and we should honor it.

I matters not to me. I would accepted either outcome, but then again, I no longer live in CA. But I would have supported the outcome because it was a legal and binding election, whether the interest groups like the outcome or not.

Derwood

Correct, I agree.

eh, maybe, but the Prop8 thing was about one group trying to PREVENT the other from something. It wasn't something the pro-gay marriage people were putting out there. They had already scored their "victory" in the state supreme court.

Regardless, civil rights issues shouldn't be open to a public vote at all.

Polar

-- Just who decided it was a civil rights issue?
Many Blacks get upset when Gays try to put Gay Marraige on the level with the Civil Rights push in the 60s.


If they are allowed civil unions recognized by law, are allowed then to have their mate be covered under their health ensurance, have entitlement to their life insurance, etc. then there is no civil rights issue.


Not wanting to change the definition of marraige that stood for thousands of years is not violating someone's civil rights.


If Gay Marraige is passed, either at a state or national level, it should be respected because it was voted and approved by the majority of Americans.


I do not, however, see how this reaches a civil rights level issue.


As soon as Gays must ride the back of the bus, drink from a different fountain, use a different entrance, then perhaps we have something to talk about.


But with gay celebreties being celebrated for...well...being gay, programs such as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and so on, it is difficult to feel the need to march in the streets, arms locked, singing "We shall overcome..."

Baraka_Guru

I don't know anyone who claims it is at the same level...but it is a civil rights issue.

There is more to it than that.

But making it illegal to validate their status as a family unit through marriage is.

I agree. But the problem remains: a majority vote on an issue affecting a minority group.

Gay couples can't form "real" families? (i.e. via marriage). How is that not a civil rights issue?

As I mentioned: I don't know of any gays claiming the same level of abuse.

Media perceptions and stereotypes are gross.

*****

My take on it is that with human/civil rights issues, the federal government should be able to influence the states, and states should be immune to federal restrictions. It's a complex issue, and I don't currently have a way to fully articulate this point at the moment.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

is astounding since they are NOT allowed legal civil unions in, what, 46 of the 50 states right now?

Polar

But CA does have Domestic Partnerships, on the same level as civil unions:

Wikipedia:
" A California domestic partnership is available to same-sex couples and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. When it became law on 22 September 1999, the domestic partnership registry entitled partners to very few privileges such as hospital visitation rights. The legislature has since expanded the scope of California domestic partnerships to afford many of the rights and responsibilities common to marriage. As such, it is now difficult to distinguish California domestic partnerships from civil unions offered in a handful of other states."

So the gay marraige argument there is moot.

The push should be focused elsewhere.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------




According to your definition, single parent families are not considered 'real' families, either.

Willravel

Civil unions only count in the state they're issued in. Marriages (by law) are recognized in all 50 states. Also, some hospitals have been able to deny visitation even when the partners have a legal civil union. There was a recent case in Florida where a lesbian wasn't allowed to see her partner and adopted children because they didn't consider the woman a spouse.

They're really not the same.

Baraka_Guru

No, not exactly. Single parents can marry someone to form a kinship if they choose to. Well, if they're not gay, anyway. If a gay couple wants to marry for the same reason, it's not allowed. This is because marriage is for "real" couples..."real" relationships..."real" kinship.

As it stands, gay couples can only have a family based on "civil unions" (except in states that prohibit even that). But marriage to some is a spiritual and religious experience/existence. By stating that marriage is only for heterosexual couples suggests that gay couples are "unmarriable." Why is that?

I'm not saying single parents don't have families or that gay couples don't. I'm saying that marriage is not available to gay couples because of discrimination against homosexual relationships—they can't choose marriage as a mode for creating a family if they want. I'm also saying that if a state legalizes it, the feds should stay out of it. And if the feds legalize it, the states should allow it.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

flstf

I believe that this government will eventually fail like most others that have existed before. Since the Civil War it seems that individual states will not be allowed to easily secede as many thought they had that right before. Perhaps next time those states desiring local control will be successful in breaking away. Allowing individual states more control now may delay the inevitable break up of the union.

Polar

So it's a matter of definition of the word "family" then.


Because a single mother who has never been married but has three kids is still considered a 'family.'




I do not know how I got the 'States Rights' thread kidnapped to stricly 'Gay Rights' but so it goes.

My point is simple: I see nothing that makes this a 'civil rights' issue.

If the state votes to support Gay Marraige, the people have spoken.

If the state votes to oppose Gay Marraige, the people have spoken.

My studies in American History show that the states were designed to be much more autonomous than they are now - Neighbors who will defend one another if someone attacks, but prefer to be left alone to do what they want within their fences...and without pressure from the other neighbors or the government.

Just like the fact we may not approve of the laws of other countries, we do not necessarily call those laws void, belittle them for believing what they do, or an overthrow.


Ah, but here is where the 'civil rights' portion does come in.
If a human being is having their right to life threatened, being unfairly imprisoned, bought and sold like chattle, unable to vote or earn an honest living, then the "what goes on behind our fence is our business" no longer flies.

I do not think Gay Marraige raises to that level. To this point, no one in this thread has shown otherwise.

But I'm still listening.

Derwood

No you're not. You've set the bar for what "civil rights" issues are so high that nothing can reach it. There is nothing useful about trying to convince you otherwise; the issue is simple, and you don't think it's a big deal. I disagree. So it goes

Baraka_Guru

I already said single parents have families. My point is that gay couples don't have the option of getting married if they wanted to. This implies that gay couples are somehow undeserving of marriage. Why is that?

This is a civil rights issue, as civil rights is about eliminating discrimination based on sex, creed, race, and sexual orientation.

Forbidding marriage on the basis of the couple simply not being heterosexual is a form of discrimination against sexual orientation: a civil rights issue.

I think the federal government should legalize it regardless of what the majority thinks. If everything were decided by the majority vote, women and blacks might not be able to vote today. Civil rights should not be put to a majority vote; that leads to a tyranny of the masses.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Polar

-- So tell me, why can't I say that you are setting the bar for what is civil rights too low to be taken seriously...and be considered just as accurate as you?


Opinion. Nothing more. Both of us are entitled to believe what we believe.


I am willing to listen. You just seem to think that repeating the same point over and over again qualifies as 'convincing.'




-- The federal government already CAN legalize it regardless of what the majority thinks. They simply chose not to.

Why? Perhaps it has something to do with an understanding of States Rights.

roachboy

what do you imagine the term "civil rights" to mean, polar?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Derwood

Enacting the Defense of Marriage Act seems to fly in the face of that particular option....

Polar

-- An excellent point. You will note that I never said I support the Defense of Marraige Act. And you will also note that a large number of people in Congress voted against it or now voice opposition to what they once supported.

I easily see a day when that will be gone. Kind of like Prohibition.




You guys seem to miss my point.
I am more for States Rights than for Government intervention in matters such as this.
I am against the over-reach of government.

You will see a day when ALL states approve and accept Gay Marraige.
Peer pressure and economic boycotts are great mind-changers.

Willravel

What is a civil right, Polar?

Polar

You have Google, don't you?

Willravel

No, how do YOU define civil rights. You keep saying you don't recognize gay marriage as a right, so we're asking you what in your mind qualifies as a right.

Martian

An aside:

Opponents of gay marriage seem to love trotting out the civil union as if it's some kind of trump card. The problem with this attitude is that 'separate but equal' historically has meant putting an emphasis on 'separate' over 'equal.' See also: Jim Crow Laws.

Carry on.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

JohnBua

The Supreme Court overstepped itself on the abortion thing. Their only job is to see if a law is constitutional, not legistlate from the bench. So this makes abortion a state's rights issue.

Derwood

How so? They determined that the laws against abortion were limiting one's Constitutional right to privacy, right? You said yourself that their job is to see if the laws are constitutional, and in this case, they decided that abortion laws were not. Where is the legislation happening?

Willravel

If JoshBoa believes the SCOTUS overstepped itself on something, it's a state issue. I think that's in the Federalist Papers.

Derwood

which goes back to my earlier point: conservatives try to make everything they don't agree with a state issue. they know these issues won't ever become state issues, which makes it an easy meme to throw out there

Polar

LOL Bologna.


It was the Republicans who made Civil Rights a national issue because the Democrat senators from the south were screaming it was a states rights issue and the rest of the nation should keep their nose out.


Just curious...

Are polygamists civil rights violated because there is no national law giving them the right to marry more than one women?
If a state chose to make it legal, would other states be required to recognize the multiple marraiges to one person?

Cynthetiq

Oh how true, the southerners vowed to secede when and if a republican was voted into office... once Lincoln was elected... they kept their promise and formed the Confederate States of America once it was clear that Lincoln was president, and seceded before the inauguration.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

ASU2003

It's a good question, and while moving from one state to another is easier than moving to another country... It still isn't easy. If I had enough money to not need to work, I could choose where I lived, and I'm sure you would see a Monaco/Cayman Island/Switzerland/Bahamas type of place formed where there are laws saying you need a certain income level to live there, the tax rate is extremely low, and home prices have to be really high.

There may also be social programs setup in some states that wouldn't apply if you moved, but you would need to pay taxes into them while you were living there. Imagine if they were to create 50 state socialist healthcare systems, but New York's insurance wasn't accepted in Nevada, but it was in North Dakota...It would be a mess.

I do think that there should be one set of corporate laws nationwide. None of this Nevada businesses & Delaware banking stuff. There are too many loopholes and incentives given to some companies that others are able to compete with afterwards.

I like being able to travel from state to state and know that some things are always legal, gun laws are one thing that I think should be more uniform (but on the side of the NRA) I should be able to shoot someone if they invade my home, I should be able to carry a gun in the car, and semi-auto weapons are ok if the user is sane.

I think there should be federal standards for lots of things as well. I guess I think the federal government is easier to watch, but harder to control.

The problem is when you get a large state that has to do a lot of work (roads, bridges, parks, crime, medical,... collecting lots of money from a state that doesn't have very many expenses at all. A flat tax rate (and a balanced budget) wouldn't be fair to the small state that only needs a 2% tax rate to cover it's expenses, but has to have a 30% one to pay for improvements in the other states.

Edit: http://www.collegeotr.com/college_ot..._america_17413
It would be interesting if a large group of states would be able to change the laws in their group. As long as people are free to move and get to other states, it might make the people living there happier. Then again, things didn't turn out so well in the 1860s.

boatin

except, of course, when they don't like the state's rights issue. Oregon's death with dignity act horrifies the right, and they think that's a national issue even though the population of Oregon has voted clearly.

the hypocrisy is nuts. and the right doesn't have an exclusive slice of that. just seemingly (to me) more of it.