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 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

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

  1. #1
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

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

    Explanation:

    I've heard multiple times from multiple sources various arguments relating to the more basic argument that states should have more autonomy in making decisions and laws.

    Or something like that (I don't fully understand this bit).

    However, what set me thinking and prompted me to make this poll was some late-night conservative talk show host (Rusty something?) that I heard say something along the lines of "abortion law should be made on a state-by-state basis - I think about 30+ states would have no limits and the rest (mostly Southern and Midwestern states) would ban it in part or in whole."

    I then got to thinking what other areas of law and such this might apply to.

    For example: Gun control or lack thereof. Currently states (to the best of my knowledge) have a lot of autonomy in that area, with some states recognizing other states firearm permits and some not, in a complex web of laws.

    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?

    Or Gay Marriage: Currently states have much autonomy in that area - is this acceptable? Should it be federally allowed or banned? Or should it stay at the state level?

    Which brings us back to abortion: Should it be decided at the federal level, as currently, due to a supreme court ruling that dictates a minimum standard for all states to follow? Should it be decided at the state level, with a mixture of different laws from state to state?

    Health Care: Should federal-level or state-level laws govern it?

    Or any other issues you can think of - are there any for which you would definitely favor state-level lawmaking over federal...Or vice versa?

    Do you favor ANY federal level laws, or would you rather all decisions be made at the state level, with only, say defense being handled at the federal level?

    Or the opposite: Only federal-level laws, leaving just very minor decisions to the states?

    -----------------

    Personally, I favor decentralized and small government, so I tend towards as few as possible federal, minimal state, and more specialized as you get down to the county and township (terms used in PA) levels, with an overall mandate to have as few laws as possible.

    This is not reasonable in our current system, to my understanding, but it's how I would prefer it.
    Education.

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

  2. #2
    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
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Each of the things that you listed should be addressed on thier own as to whether it should be a state or federal issue. I favor small government be it federal or state. But that doesn't mean that I think that everything should be left up to each state. Or that everything should be left up to just the federal government.

    Short version of the things you listed:

    Abortion: Federal.
    Marriage: Federal. But perfer that it be left entirely up to the individuals.
    Healthcare: neither...should be up to the individual and thier doctor. The only thing that the Feds should do is make sure that the drugs being used are not dangerous. States should stay out of it.
    Gun control: There shouldn't BE any gun control. We should have available to us the same guns that is used in the military baring missiles. The biggest reason that we have gun rights is because it is the citizens that are suppose to keep the government in check. And we can't do that with .22's.
    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

  3. #3
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

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

    The 10th Amendment is clear and easy to understand it says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    But this has been encroached upon by the Federal Government with vigorous enough opposition from the States as a whole.

    The same thing in reverse has happened to the power of the President, which has expanded without the needed challenges from Congress.

    These and many more reasons are why I want a new strong leader to come to office and force the issue that the Founders got it right and we have been screwing it up a little at a time for 235 years.

  4. #4
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 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
    Each of the things that you listed should be addressed on thier own as to whether it should be a state or federal issue. I favor small government be it federal or state. But that doesn't mean that I think that everything should be left up to each state. Or that everything should be left up to just the federal government.

    Short version of the things you listed:

    Abortion: Federal.
    Marriage: Federal. But perfer that it be left entirely up to the individuals.
    Healthcare: neither...should be up to the individual and thier doctor. The only thing that the Feds should do is make sure that the drugs being used are not dangerous. States should stay out of it.
    Gun control: There shouldn't BE any gun control. We should have available to us the same guns that is used in the military baring missiles. The biggest reason that we have gun rights is because it is the citizens that are suppose to keep the government in check. And we can't do that with .22's.
    This is why I always put an "other" option on my polls - because invariably, someone's opinion doesn't fit an option exactly.

    But I didn't intend that my 4 examples would limit the scope of discussion - rather I put them there because they were the first that occurred to me.

    Are there any other issues you can think of on which you disagree with the current setup and would prefer more or less federal or state control of? Or no control?

    However, on the four I posted, I tend towards agreement with you on the second two with perhaps disagreement on the first two - mostly the marriage.

    The abortion thing I'm not too clear on, as I've tended to avoid the issue since it's mostly people in entrenched and strongly shielded positions shelling each other with shells packed full of propaganda.

    However, the argument for it being a state-level issue seemed to make sense - unless we're considering it from a women's rights issue exclusively in which case much of any limitation would violate those rights. Meh.
    Education.

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

  5. #5
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    The 10th Amendment is clear and easy to understand it says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    But this has been encroached upon by the Federal Government with vigorous enough opposition from the States as a whole.

    The same thing in reverse has happened to the power of the President, which has expanded without the needed challenges from Congress.

    These and many more reasons are why I want a new strong leader to come to office and force the issue that the Founders got it right and we have been screwing it up a little at a time for 235 years.
    Perhaps I misunderstand, but it appears that your statement regarding too much power in the executive branch is in conflict with your desire for a strong leader. Unless you mean a congressman that leads his party or something...
    Education.

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

  6. #6
    Educator U.S. Socialist.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    04-18-12 @ 04:55 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    913

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

    You know what I've never understood. A lot of proponents of the states rights argument argue that the states and local government are more responsive to the people and less likely to abuse their power. However, history shows otherwise. Segregation was endorsed by several southern states and had to be broken by the hammer of federal power.

    Also a lot of state and local laws that have conflicted with the Bill of Rights have been overturned via the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of Incorporation. Prior to 1890s states and local governments could limit the rights guaranteed you by the Bill of Rights because it only applied to the federal government, however that has changed due to Incorporation.

    The most recent example, which conservatives should like, is McDonald Vs. Chicago where the City tried to outlaw gun ownership and the Supreme Court though the due process clause of the 14th Amendment stuck that law down.

    I do think there should be a balance, I mainly wanted to address the ideal that state and local governments are "good" or "not corrupt" and the federal government is "bad' and 'corrupt" and useless.

  7. #7
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

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

    Quote Originally Posted by U.S. Socialist. View Post
    You know what I've never understood. A lot of proponents of the states rights argument argue that the states and local government are more responsive to the people and less likely to abuse their power. However, history shows otherwise. Segregation was endorsed by several southern states and had to be broken by the hammer of federal power.

    Also a lot of state and local laws that have conflicted with the Bill of Rights have been overturned via the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of Incorporation. Prior to 1890s states and local governments could limit the rights guaranteed you by the Bill of Rights because it only applied to the federal government, however that has changed due to Incorporation.

    The most recent example, which conservatives should like, is McDonald Vs. Chicago where the City tried to outlaw gun ownership and the Supreme Court though the due process clause of the 14th Amendment stuck that law down.

    I do think there should be a balance, I mainly wanted to address the ideal that state and local governments are "good" or "not corrupt" and the federal government is "bad' and 'corrupt" and useless.
    State gov. is in no way immune from corruption - I live in PA, so I should know

    But that is one reason I support minimal gov. on all levels - to limit the scope of the nearly inevitable corruption.

    Problem is, a corrupt gov is more likely to try expanding - since that obviously helps those who are corrupt.
    Education.

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

  8. #8
    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
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    But I didn't intend that my 4 examples would limit the scope of discussion - rather I put them there because they were the first that occurred to me.

    Are there any other issues you can think of on which you disagree with the current setup and would prefer more or less federal or state control of? Or no control?
    I could make a list and state what I think of each one a mile wide. Which is the problem. The list is so huge that it would become meaningless. Which is why I said that each issue should be addressed on its own. I will add one more to your list though. That of agriculture being limited by the federal government on how much they can grow. IMO that should be a state issue as a state is far more limited in land than the federal government. However at the same time I think that the federal government should be involved only for reasons of safety. IE make sure that the food is safe for consumption.

    See, I figure that many issues are far more complex than many people realize. For example my suggestion on agriculture. Many people would just consider that they (the feds) shouldn't do it and leave it entirely up to the states...never even thinking that food safety is a national concern when it comes to food in this day and age of being able to transport things from point A to point B in a matter of a few days...if not hours. As such it deserves both the state and the feds working in tandem. One working on one thing while the other works on the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    However, on the four I posted, I tend towards agreement with you on the second two with perhaps disagreement on the first two - mostly the marriage.
    The reason that I listed marriage as a federal deal is because I whole heartedly believe that marriage is a right that should be applied to ALL equally. And states are willing to segregate people on this issue.

    The reason that I listed abortion as a federal issue is because it is an extremely hot topic that needs resolved across the board. And the only ones that can possibly do that is the feds. Now I'm not saying that even if the feds took a stand on that issue that it wouldn't be contested either way. But at least we would have a central location to effect change on it instead of going through years of lower courts or sytems to effect that change. Its just too big of a deal to be left up to the states.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    The abortion thing I'm not too clear on, as I've tended to avoid the issue since it's mostly people in entrenched and strongly shielded positions shelling each other with shells packed full of propaganda.
    As one that is pretty much always commenting in the abortion section I can tell you that you are absolutely correct here. I'm sure that even I do it...though probably unawares that I am. I try not to as I value independent thinking.
    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. #9
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 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 could make a list and state what I think of each one a mile wide. Which is the problem. The list is so huge that it would become meaningless. Which is why I said that each issue should be addressed on its own. I will add one more to your list though. That of agriculture being limited by the federal government on how much they can grow. IMO that should be a state issue as a state is far more limited in land than the federal government. However at the same time I think that the federal government should be involved only for reasons of safety. IE make sure that the food is safe for consumption.
    I suppose I should have made my poll options more general and asked for explanation on each possible answer...Meh, at least it sparked some thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    See, I figure that many issues are far more complex than many people realize. For example my suggestion on agriculture. Many people would just consider that they (the feds) shouldn't do it and leave it entirely up to the states...never even thinking that food safety is a national concern when it comes to food in this day and age of being able to transport things from point A to point B in a matter of a few days...if not hours. As such it deserves both the state and the feds working in tandem. One working on one thing while the other works on the other.
    That seems to make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    The reason that I listed marriage as a federal deal is because I whole heartedly believe that marriage is a right that should be applied to ALL equally. And states are willing to segregate people on this issue.
    Interesting.

    I was looking at the legal-marriage issue from the perspective of it (or so I understand) being designed originally as a way to influence the population - encouraging marriage for stability reasons and the like, I think.

    In that sense, I suppose you could say it's in both the federal and individual states interest to promote or discourage it depending on their goals.

    Although I suppose that could be accomplished through adding incentives (tax breaks and the like) at the state level, while allowing all marriages (or disallowing, depending) at the federal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    The reason that I listed abortion as a federal issue is because it is an extremely hot topic that needs resolved across the board. And the only ones that can possibly do that is the feds. Now I'm not saying that even if the feds took a stand on that issue that it wouldn't be contested either way. But at least we would have a central location to effect change on it instead of going through years of lower courts or sytems to effect that change. Its just too big of a deal to be left up to the states.
    I was thinking more that if some states banned it and some did not, those persons who believed it should be banned (in part or in whole) would probably tend to move or stay there, whereas those who believed it should be completely unregulated (in part or in whole) would move to those states that allowed it.

    Hmmmm...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    As one that is pretty much always commenting in the abortion section I can tell you that you are absolutely correct here. I'm sure that even I do it...though probably unawares that I am. I try not to as I value independent thinking.
    My personal views on the subject contradict each other in some ways, and since IMO there is no good answer to the issue, it's not really one I get into.

    Which is one reason I thought the state-level bit would be better - people are so incensed over it that having the option of living in an area where it was banned or allowed (depending) might help cool some off...nah.
    Education.

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

  10. #10
    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
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Personally I like the thread the way it is.

    Now while I'd love to respond to your post fully I'm afraid I have two problems in doing that. 1: My reply would end up being off topic. Which I don't want to do to this thread. (I know it would because I was writing up a full reply when I realized what I was doing lol) 2: its almost 4am here...I need to get to bed. lol

    Night!
    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

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •