States not State

[botchan]

It seems very apparent from a lot of posts, that many people on this board would like to rest the power for many issues in the hands of the Federal government. I think that this subject could use some debate here. There are many good points on both sides of the issue. I would like to point out to hopefully get the ball rolling that the Declaration of Independence states:

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"

"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States..."

The founding fathers did not call for a free and independent STATE. This is because they saw the danger of resting rule in the hands of one centrally controlled government. We are sliding in that direction and that scares me slightly.

[SoCalDem]

1. It should scare you A LOT

Welcome to DU :hi:

[trotsky]

2. "In order to form a more perfect union"

So what's your take on that?

[botchan]

3. it is a

statement that they want to unify under their collective powers. It is a statement that the states would be better (perfect) if they were self guiding. The unification of the states is not a call for a state. Do you have a different take on that?

[trotsky]

4. I think you're neglecting a part of history.

Namely, the Articles of Confederation.

You're drawing on quotes from the Declaration of Independence, which was followed by the Revolutionary War and then the Articles of Confederation. That was such a miserable failure, a constitutional convention was called which resulted in our current Constitution which created a stronger federal authority.

Under the A of C, states were SO self-guiding that they started printing their own currency and having trade wars with each other.

[botchan]

7. I agree

The original organization of power was a "miserable failure." Residue from the original separation was a leading cause of the Civil War. However, I still believe that totally removing the states ability to direct it's own growth would cause serious issues. From commerce to education, the system would end up being tilted towards the most profitable states while ignoring others.

[trotsky]

9. Not sure I follow.

What ability of a state to "direct its own growth" has been removed?

Also, this "system" which favors profitable states - have you seen the map which shows the states and how much money they put into the federal gov't versus how much they take out?

[botchan]

10. Removal of state powers

States currently have power over several issues.

Here are some:

* Issue licenses
* Regulate intrastate businesses
* Conduct elections
* Establish local governments
* Ratify amendments to the Constitution
* Take measures for public health and safety
* May exert powers the Constitution does not delegate to the national government or prohibit the states from using

As you mentioned previously, the federal government's job for nearly 100 years was foreign affairs (which currently is a diabolical).

The Depression in the 1930s ended what was known as "dual federalism." States could not handle the depressed economy and President Roosevelt (one of my favorites) came with the "New Deal" which encouraged the national, state, and local governments to work together on specific programs. This "cooperative federalism" is what has led to the great country we have today.

What I meant by wealthy states was those states that currently have an abundance of industry and wealth. They would be stronger at lobbying this large centrally controlled government. This is similar to local issues of the "rich neighborhood." items. Much easier to control on a small scale.

A little quote from Jefferson to help state my position on local government:

"Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.

If this was the case with 13, what would he say of 50?

[trotsky]

12. Two responses.

First, when considering that "wealthy states" have the system rigged in their favor, you need to reconcile that with the following map:



Every WHITE state on the map voted for Gore, AND gives more money to the federal government than it receives.

Every LIGHT RED state voted for Bush, AND gives more money to the federal government than it receives.

Every DARK RED state voted for Bush, and RECEIVES more money from the feds than it gives.

What are the wealthy states, and what color are they?

Second, we should look carefully at that Jefferson quote - "Our country is too large to have ALL its affairs directed by a single government."

That much is true. But they aren't ALL, are they? No, the states still have numerous powers, some of which you listed. The question merely becomes one of where do you draw the line. That quote doesn't help us with that.

[botchan]

15. very true

The line is gray and very dim. The issue here is those states currently give to the party system. Don't you think that by removing ALL state power (which is my original premise) that we open the door for even greater corporate government? Lobbyist and powerful corporations will have only one government to control in this case. I must admit, that I truly believe corporations already control the federal government and that as a democracy, changes starts at a local government level.

Remember that removal of State governments means no local governments... An entire federal system. It scares me.

[trotsky]

17. Neither I nor anyone on DU I have seen...

is recommending the removal of state governments, so I'm not sure why you are intent on attacking that strawman.

And if you're worried about corporate control, and think that local governments are the agent to change that, I would invite you to go read up on a typical Wal-Mart battle with local governments - and find out which side wins most of the time.

[botchan]

18. Actually...

My town beat the Wal-Mart battle :) Also, there have been several posts concerning education and licensing (especially civil union - marraige)removal to a federal level. It is this picking away that will eradicate states' powers. I never claimed that YOU specifically are calling for an eradication of state governments.

[trotsky]

19. Congrats

That is definitely the exception rather than the rule.

I never claimed that YOU specifically are calling for an eradication of state governments.

No, you didn't, but instead of answering my points specifically, you instead brought up the hypothetical of abolishing state governments. And I just didn't see how that was relevant - any more than if I said imagine what would happen if we abolished the federal government.

[botchan]

21. Ok..

We are losing the original point. Which is... I believe that all issues are not federal issues. I assumed (bad me) that you felt all issues are federal issues. I specifically noted commerce and education. I don't like the direction of federally controlled education. I believe that it would be a miserable failure.

In the last three days I have read three different posts that called for the removal of state control over education, licensing, and some forms of commerce (these posts had many - I agree, states screw this stuff up - replies). If the state is not functioning properly, why do we think the federally government will fix it? *edit: I don't mean you as in you personally. :)

[PsN2Wind]

16. I have long thought

that the amount of federal dollars returned to the states versus their contribution should be factored into the tax code. Filers in a state that, just picking numbers out of the air, receive $1.10 back for each dollar sent to the IRS would figure their tax using the standard tables then add 10%. The inverse would be true for those filers in states that receive less than that dollar for dollar amount. Let the states getting the pork pay for the largesse.

[sui generis]

5. there are some things that inherently define our rights

as Americans, regardless of what state we live in. To allow states to decide on issues such as civil rights is wrong, and states have proven in EVERY case that if you give their wingnuts an opportunity to discriminate they will, and they will defend it vigorously.

If I am a same-sex parent traveling in Virginia, my children can be taken away from me by child protective services at a traffic stop, because they don't recognize any of the "appurtenances" accorded to same-sex civil marriage in any other state.

That's pretty serious. Image what it would be like if someone could take your children away just because you have blue eyes, but married blue-eyed people aren't recognized as married in certain states.

The federal government MUST have authority in those cases - and if it hadn't set the bar with civil rights in the sixties, it would still be legal to require separate facilities for African Americans and to discriminate against people in every conceivable public transaction based on the color of their skin.

[Massacure]

6. When they tried to give the states the majority of the power

They all worked against each other. It wasn't very united at all. If the U.S. had followed the first government, each state would have it's own currency and it's own military.

However, they had to go and start over from scratch. The second time around, they gave the federal government more power.

I agree that the federal government is really big and bloated, however there is a fine line.

[botchan]

8. I concur with this point as well

It is the fine line that I am concerned with. A post above mentions civil right issues. This is a great example of a federal issue. Nationally we should agree to items such as civil rights, immigration, etc... The ability of the state to govern items such as commerce and education however are paramount. If we were to send larger numbers of representatives to offset the loss of local government, the already bloated central government would all but stall.

[Cats Against Frist]

11. I sort of agree

But I think there's a lot of problems in the practicality of it, as other posters have mentioned. Our founders felt that it was good enough to proclaim that the Bill of Rights, be good for all 50 states, and I think that all basic liberties -- that ALL individuals have the right to their body, property and peace -- should be extended and enforced throughout the 50 states.

Libertarianism isn't too popular around here, but it's a very big part of the libertarian argument -- which has some merits and some problems, just like everything else.

The government is too big, and contrary to the opinion of your average freeper, it's not just the left that has bloated the government -- maybe monetarily and through the welfare state, but I suspect most freepers are quite happy with the corporation's human status, militarization and federal law enforcement agencies and the drug war, pre-emptive foreign policy, and then the massive black hole of legislated constructs from the "core 'murican values" crowd. The right is just as much into big government as the left, and they have no absolute claim to say that Democrats are "commies" and the GOP wants "freedom." It's almost absurd. They want states' rights, like I want a hole in the head.

As I study the birth of our nation farther, I do become more of a left-libertarian, which I translate (for those in disbelief of the term) to mean that I agree with the leftist critique of society, yet don't necessarily agree that more government is the right way to solve it. "Personal responsibility" is often lobbed at the lower, welfare-dependent minority classes, as a jibe, but I say that it's a jibe to the middle and upper classes, as well. "Personal responsibility" includes helping those less fortunate, being an aware and responsible consumer, and being involved in stewarding your democracy.

I think we, on the left, get a little too sentimental sometimes, about the poor middle and lower classes. I DO very much believe that there are predators out there, and that the rich are greedy, and sometimes those who are working hard still can't make it -- but let me ask: who makes them rich? The people who buy their products and contribute their labor to these corporations. Tons of Democrats and liberals rail against the corporations, but have no problem marching into the Wal-Mart, or whatever. There are always alternatives. But it involves people mobilization, not government coersion.

The problem is, however, that as much as you want to smoke the libertarian fantasy (which I do), it's really too late -- we're not just nationalized by federal laws, but by technology, corporations, infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc. If you use the GOP/Libertarian pipe dream of just "limiting the government," and don't pay heed to the other institutions and processes that made the big government necessary, in the first place, you're really screwing the lower classes.

So what to do? Beats the fuck out of me? I'm a liberal libertarian populist anarchist postmodern nihlist -- nobody wants to listen to me, on the right, or the left. And whose to say that I have any more answers than the ideological left or right?

The point is, that we all got the big government beast, together: left, right, and in between -- and the reason, first and foremost is that we're so drowsy with consumerism that we don't steward our democracy or make responsible choices. And the travesty is that we've already LET the ultra-wealthy megalopoly multinationals make all this money -- of our back and our labor -- and buy up our government. Now they want to take away what protections we do have -- under the guise of "freedom and personal responsibility," absolutes/constructs. That's bullshit. You can't argue the tenets of classical liberalism, at this point, because we've already fucked that possibility up.

So, I don't know what to do about states rights, in terms of technology, resources, et. al. -- if we're so divided that we have to split up into our 50 corners or sub-regions, whose to say that one region will sell another its coal, or gas? Or send its apples or oranges? Of course, there's always the option of buying it from another country.

Anyway, too much to relay in one post. But as to your original question -- it's a fucking fantastic idea -- in a vacuum.

[botchan]

13. So much - Where to reply

"I'm a liberal libertarian populist anarchist postmodern nihlist." That is a mouthful! It also describes a lot of the thinking majority in our country.

I agree we have created a growing national beast of a government. I relish your statement about people becoming active in government - "...we're so drowsy with consumerism that we don't steward our democracy..." I am all too sickened by the lack of government knowledge in today's society. We have been lulled into oblivion by the flickering images on our television set. I love to point out how more Americans are concerned that their "American Idol" vote counts than their presidential election vote!

Thanks for continuing the discourse.

And I agree, changing our current course might be inevitable fucked. Like trying to choose not to go over the falls five seconds prior...

[gpandas]

14. constitution is law, not declaration...

of independence. it was tough,in those days, to even have a meeting among representatives of colonies due to lengthy transport. there was great disagreement between cotton-growing states, that depended on british mills for a market, and the industrial north and its booming population. to even form a union of colonies is a remarkable accomplishment, especially considering most colonies were settled by religious sects. deals were made, and we ended up with a unbalanced representative democracy. today we have california's 30 million people with two reps and the empty states with few people two reps in our house of lords, er, senate. without these inducements the low populated colonies would not have agreed to form a union. however, nothing trumps the constitution and it's guarantee of individual rights. states cannot, in any way, take away these rights.

[botchan]

20. No, they can't

States can make no laws contrary to the Bill of Rights or the entire constitution. However, because of the very representation in your quote local issues are of meager importance at a federal level. There is a post on this board that calls for the removal of local school boards and all education jurisdiction given to the federal government --> ouch. Like two representatives for 30 million people can help a school district in Alturas, CA. This is what I am alluding to. Far too many issues are being though of as Federal as we as a populous become complacent and expect government to solve all issues.

[gpandas]

22. in ohio, the state supremes...

ruled that local funding of schools through property tax was unjust, and gave the legislature a deadline to produce a better, more just way to fund education. the deadline has come and gone with no action. this is an interesting case, since both ohio and u.s have equal-in-the-eyes-of-the-law provisions in their constitutions.