View Poll Results: State's Rights

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes - full state autonomy.

    8 19.51%
  • Yes - most laws decided at state level

    21 51.22%
  • Neutral - leave as-is, nothing is wrong with system.

    9 21.95%
  • No - most laws decided at federal level.

    14 34.15%
  • No - all laws decided at federal level.

    9 21.95%
  • Other - explain please.

    16 39.02%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Would it be better if there were a basic federal standard that all states had to meet at least? A maximum limitation? Should all firearm permits be accepted in any state?
    You must remember that the Federal government has only certain enumerated powers; powers it does not have are retained by the states.
    This is the basis for the 'state's rights' issue. Of course, the states do not have the power to violate the US constitution, and in certain cases both the states and the federal government share power, but the cruix of the biscuit is the idea that the powers not delegated to the federal government remian with the states.

  2. #12
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe View Post
    You must remember that the Federal government has only certain enumerated powers; powers it does not have are retained by the states.
    This is the basis for the 'state's rights' issue. Of course, the states do not have the power to violate the US constitution, and in certain cases both the states and the federal government share power, but the cruix of the biscuit is the idea that the powers not delegated to the federal government remian with the states.
    Indeed.

    But is that what you think best?
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #13
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    The thing about state sovereignty is that isolated existence within a single state is becoming a rarity. The rules changing when one crosses a state line... that makes no sense. Nearly all commerce now is interstate, and much of it is international. A person's life and family can take them to multiple states within the space of a week. Students change states to go to college all the time. States are largely obsolete. They muck up presidential elections and foster the "all or nothing" dominance of the two main parties. Local representation is handled easily at the county level, for example. Collecting a group of counties or districts together into a state... it's a useless gesture. We are too intertwined in this country to divide ourselves up into states, and to give them so much control. Crossing a border, within the same country, should not be such a drastic change.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  4. #14
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,611
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    I think states should have the power to make their own laws... with one exception. No state should be allowed to make a law that circumvents constitutional protections. For example, the right to privacy and reproductive choice is not specified in the constitution per se, but has been declared a constitutional right by SCOTUS. The same with civil rights, equal opportunity, and anti-discrimination laws.

    Examples:

    * California has legalized medical marijuana statewide. The feds have decided they will not respect the California law, and will enforce federal laws within the state. That is a clear violation of State's Rights since there is no constitutional basis.

    * Several states have legislated harsh anti-abortion laws making it difficult or impossible for women who wish to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. That is a clear violation of the SCOTUS constitutional right to privacy and reproductive choice, and those laws should be fought by federal authorities under constitutional grounds.

    * Left completely to their own devices, many states in the south would still be using segregation and other discriminatory laws. Only the power of constitutional protection allowed the feds to force these states to overturn the laws and the practices.

    I'm all for the feds going after states that try an end-run around the constitution based on petty political ideology. I'm just plain pissed when the feds do an end-run around states rights based on the same damned thing.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Indeed.
    But is that what you think best?
    The more local the government, the better it represents its people.

    Aside from that, you cannot simply dismiss the frole of the states within our system of government - ultimately they hold power over the Federal government

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I think states should have the power to make their own laws... with one exception. No state should be allowed to make a law that circumvents constitutional protections
    Guess what?
    That's exactly what we have today.

    * California has legalized medical marijuana statewide. The feds have decided they will not respect the California law, and will enforce federal laws within the state. That is a clear violation of State's Rights since there is no constitutional basis.
    False. CA can have whatever loaw it so chooses in this regard; whatever the CA law may be, Federal law still applies. That the Federal government will enforce federal law in CA does not in any way infringe on the rights of the state of CA.

    Have to ask:
    1994-2004, the state of Oio had no 'assault weapon' ban.
    Should the Federal government not have enforced this ban in the state of Ohio?
    Was doing so a violation of the rights of the state of Ohio?
    Apples-apples...

    * Several states have legislated harsh anti-abortion laws making it difficult or impossible for women who wish to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. That is a clear violation of the SCOTUS constitutional right to privacy and reproductive choice, and those laws should be fought by federal authorities under constitutional grounds
    This depends entirelyon the law in question. Roe v Wade states that there is a compelling state interest in the state regulation of abortion past the 1st trimenster; any state laws effective after that point do not (necessarily) violate the constitutional rights of the mother.

    * Left completely to their own devices, many states in the south would still be using segregation and other discriminatory laws. Only the power of constitutional protection allowed the feds to force these states to overturn the laws and the practices.
    States do not have the right to violate the Constitution. The 14th amendment keeps these things from happening.

  7. #17
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    I feel we would be better off if states had maintained their rightful powers given by the constitution.

    Instead of the constant left vs right battle in Washington that encompasses the entire nation we would instead have 50 possibly very different states which would allow US citizens to better find a state that suits them. For example we could have a very liberal California where gay marriage, marijuana, and a social program friendly state, and in Texas we could have a very different outcome all together.

    This could also have a positive outcome by comparing laws of each state and their outcome instead of a blanket federal law that everyone has to abide by. This removes other possibilities and outcomes that may work better for the people. Why approach a problem with a single solution when we could have different 50 attempts to see which works better. Instead we have a federal government with a single solution mindset and if the outcome is not as successful as we hoped we just throw more money at it and hope it goes away.

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    I'm going to try and sum something up here when it concerns the fed vs the states.

    When the founding fathers first made the bill of rights there were those that did not want to make it. Not because they thought that people didn't deserve rights or that the federal government shouldn't protect individual rights. But because they were afraid that by doing so they would put a limit on what would be considered Rights. It is my opinion that this is exactly what has happened.

    For example marriage. They never even questioned the fact that people had a right to marry. It was one of those things that was so obvious that it should have been idiotic to even question, much less put in the BoR. Now what do we have? People saying that marriage is not a right. Even asking (telling) people to show them proof that it is written somewhere in the Constitution as a right.

    Now with all of that said I believe that anything that could be considered a Right (whether it is in the Constitution or not) should be handled strictly by the federal government in the form of protection. Anything that has to do with safety from others or inanimate objects should be left to the federal government with peoples rights over ruling all else. The other things that the government should handle are issues which are so huge as to be impossible to apply equally across the whole country on a state by state basis. For example, abortion. Everything else should be left up to either the individual or the States.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  9. #19
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I'm going to try and sum something up here when it concerns the fed vs the states.

    When the founding fathers first made the bill of rights there were those that did not want to make it. Not because they thought that people didn't deserve rights or that the federal government shouldn't protect individual rights. But because they were afraid that by doing so they would put a limit on what would be considered Rights. It is my opinion that this is exactly what has happened.

    For example marriage. They never even questioned the fact that people had a right to marry. It was one of those things that was so obvious that it should have been idiotic to even question, much less put in the BoR. Now what do we have? People saying that marriage is not a right. Even asking (telling) people to show them proof that it is written somewhere in the Constitution as a right.

    Now with all of that said I believe that anything that could be considered a Right (whether it is in the Constitution or not) should be handled strictly by the federal government in the form of protection. Anything that has to do with safety from others or inanimate objects should be left to the federal government with peoples rights over ruling all else. The other things that the government should handle are issues which are so huge as to be impossible to apply equally across the whole country on a state by state basis. For example, abortion. Everything else should be left up to either the individual or the States.
    I view the marriage bit in two sections.

    Religious or independent marriage - as in, two people who wish to be joined and thus are. Ceremonies can be involved, but there are no legal aspects.

    Legal and/or financial marriage - The union of two people's financial and related assets into one unit, sealed by a legal document (marriage certificate).

    For the former, no restrictions.

    For the latter, it's up to whomever is in control of marriage certificate issuance to determine who is allowed to legally marry and what, if any, tax breaks or other financial incentives are involved.

    Currently, it's on a state-by-state basis. For example NY just recently allowed gay couples to acquire marriage certificates (or so I understand).
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  10. #20
    Civil Libertarian
    DashingAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    08-31-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,357

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Ok, the way I see it, states should hold almost sole jurisdiciton. I also feel that anything major the citizens themselves should vote on. (i.e. If a state or federal government wants to change gun law in any way then the citizens of that state, or country if it's a change to federal restrictions, should be allowed to vote on it.)

    That being said, the marriage thing should be on a much smaller level. People with marriage licenses should not be forced to marry anybody at all. Say, a Baptist church should not be forced to marry a gay couple. Though, it should be readily available for anyone to be married at a courthouse or town hall.
    If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •