• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we abolish the idea of "states" in the usa?

Should we eliminate the idea of states?

  • Yes, the idea of states is counterproductive and outdated

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • No, it's in the constitution

    Votes: 18 94.7%

  • Total voters
    19
China has 1.3 BILLION people spread out over a landmass LARGER THAN THE USA, and yet have succeeded in having a strong central government. They also have lower gun violence, a higher literacy rate, zero racism or hate crimes, and are still a major world power.

China is smaller than the US.
 
The individual rights are paramount. The state rights are the next level of protection. Both are necessary. What is so difficult to understand?

Individual rights are not a worry of his.
 
I never understood having 50 different criminal codes, surely murder is murder no matter where you are.

That comes down to if states want the option of "try 'em then fry 'em".
 
The individual rights are paramount. The state rights are the next level of protection. Both are necessary. What is so difficult to understand?

Because reds don't comprehend freedom.
 
That is what the liberals want. All power, absolutely all power, in Fortress Washington DC.
 
No, the idea of a broken USA should be banished. The power belongs in the hands of the people, not a ubiquitous federal government. State governments are much closer and thus much more accountable to the people.

A strong central government is the BANE of Liberty and Freedom.
 
The idea of an individual state having so much power within a sovereign country is insanely confusing. It boggles my mind that states like Texas are allowed to restrict abortion, that states like North Carolina or Alabama are allowed to pass laws restricting LGBTQ rights, or that individual states are allowed to make their own laws allowing assault rifles while banning a simple harmless weed from being smoked.

Personally, the only laws that local, non-federal governments should be allowed to make should be speed limits, road construction/repairs, and limited oversight over local taxes. All other laws, such as those regarding a woman's right to choose, should be the sole territory of the national government.

The idea of states themselves makes no sense. Why does each province of this country get to have it's own flag, its own "state anthem", it's own motto, and it's own constitution? This is basically just encouraging secession, regionalism, and state government overreach.

I believe that the idea of states should be abolished, and should be replaced with thirty national district of ten million people each. Each district would have two senators, and it's own local elected board of trustees to oversee local issues such as speed limits. Each district would only be referred by number (for example District 29), and would not have its own flag or constitution. This is to hammer in the fact that the federal government, not the state government, is in charge.

Once again, these districts would only be allowed to make laws regarding local issues, such as roads, building codes, or park funding. Important issues such as the minimum wage, the rights of LGBTQ individuals, the legalization of Marijuana, etc. would be made by the federal government and be the same nationwide.

I know that some of you will say "but the idea of states is in the constitution!" Yes it is. But the constitution is just a piece of paper which can be edited. The constitution in 1789 allowed slavery, treated people of color as subhumans, and banned women from voting. I believe the idea of having fifty sovereign states within our nation is another antiquated idea which needs to go the way of the horse and buggy.

No wonder you are a Socialist, you have no clue about how the country works.
 
I think that we need to go further than just nerfing. I believe that here, as in many cases, China is a good example to follow. The provinces of China do not have their own flags, anthems, mottos, etc. and their governments cannot pass any laws other than those regarding local issues such as speed limits.

Bwahahahaha! "...China is a good example to follow."

Where do these people come from and why do they completely and utterly no understand the concepts upon which the U.S. was founded on? Power divested from a central power is one of the main checks that keeps complete and utter tyranny from taking hold, you know, like China?

No, if anything, the states need to get more of their power back from the federal government. I didn't pick an answer in the poll because I don't choose "no" only because it's in the Constitution.
 
China has 1.3 BILLION people spread out over a landmass LARGER THAN THE USA, and yet have succeeded in having a strong central government. They also have lower gun violence, a higher literacy rate, zero racism or hate crimes, and are still a major world power.

"Succeeded"? Why having a "strong central government" is a measure of success? Is Switzerland (no central government to speak of) less successful than North Korea (nothing but central government)?
 
China has 1.3 BILLION people spread out over a landmass LARGER THAN THE USA, and yet have succeeded in having a strong central government. They also have lower gun violence, a higher literacy rate, zero racism or hate crimes, and are still a major world power.

They also don't have freedom or clean air to breath.
 
No its not.


The idea of an individual state having so much power within a sovereign country is insanely confusing. It boggles my mind that states like Texas are allowed to restrict abortion, that states like North Carolina or Alabama are allowed to pass laws restricting LGBTQ rights, or that individual states are allowed to make their own laws allowing assault rifles while banning a simple harmless weed from being smoked.

Personally, the only laws that local, non-federal governments should be allowed to make should be speed limits, road construction/repairs, and limited oversight over local taxes. All other laws, such as those regarding a woman's right to choose, should be the sole territory of the national government.

The idea of states themselves makes no sense. Why does each province of this country get to have it's own flag, its own "state anthem", it's own motto, and it's own constitution? This is basically just encouraging secession, regionalism, and state government overreach.

I believe that the idea of states should be abolished, and should be replaced with thirty national district of ten million people each. Each district would have two senators, and it's own local elected board of trustees to oversee local issues such as speed limits. Each district would only be referred by number (for example District 29), and would not have its own flag or constitution. This is to hammer in the fact that the federal government, not the state government, is in charge.

Once again, these districts would only be allowed to make laws regarding local issues, such as roads, building codes, or park funding. Important issues such as the minimum wage, the rights of LGBTQ individuals, the legalization of Marijuana, etc. would be made by the federal government and be the same nationwide.

I know that some of you will say "but the idea of states is in the constitution!" Yes it is. But the constitution is just a piece of paper which can be edited. The constitution in 1789 allowed slavery, treated people of color as subhumans, and banned women from voting. I believe the idea of having fifty sovereign states within our nation is another antiquated idea which needs to go the way of the horse and buggy.
 
Each district would only be referred by number (for example District 29), and would not have its own flag or constitution. This is to hammer in the fact that the federal government, not the state government, is in charge.

image.jpg
 
The idea of states themselves makes no sense. Why does each province of this country get to have it's own flag, its own "state anthem", it's own motto, and it's own constitution? This is basically just encouraging secession, regionalism, and state government overreach.

Because the states were their own sovereign governments that voluntarily ratified the join in a union for some common defense and some economic benefits, not to cede all of their autonomy.
 
No, it's larger.

The US is "larger" when you count territorial waters, but China has more landmass

Yeaaaah.

Even taking the most generous estimate of Chinese land with the most stingy estimate of US land, China comes out less than 2% larger.

Still waiting for you to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution which "god damn did" restrict voting to white landowners. I suspect I will be waiting a long time.
 
I never understood having 50 different criminal codes, surely murder is murder no matter where you are.

stuff like murder is not where controversy usually comes in criminal codes, it's when you start getting into more subjective issues like DUI enforcement, gun offenses, drug offenses, how certain classes of crimes are categorized (for example, every gun crime in Washington state is a misdemeanor, whereas every gun crime in NJ is a felony) some states have differing ideas as to what constitutes minor offenses like trespassing.

or how much power the police have to enforce laws, in NYC cops have almost free reign it seems, here in WA DUI checkpoints are illegal and the cops can't search your garbage can without a warrant.
 
All the states have to follow federal law. But the states can add state legislation to make a federal law stronger or more strict...but they can't pass laws that violate or weaken federal law. So Federal law provides a basic framework that all must states follow...but the individual states can refine and enhance federal laws to their own satisfaction.

sorry, you are 100% incorrect. states and the federal government are each independent sovereigns. they can enact their own laws independent of each other. states cannot enforce their own laws as it relates to laws restricting constitutionally protected rights, nor may weaker state law be used as a defense in federal courts, but this idea of "state laws can be stronger or make federal law more strict" that is 100% false, states may not modify federal law unless the feds have granted that power, and generally state officers are unable to directly enforce federal law.
 
China has 1.3 BILLION people spread out over a landmass LARGER THAN THE USA, and yet have succeeded in having a strong central government. They also have lower gun violence, a higher literacy rate, zero racism or hate crimes, and are still a major world power.

Ummm

No.
 
stuff like murder is not where controversy usually comes in criminal codes, it's when you start getting into more subjective issues like DUI enforcement, gun offenses, drug offenses, how certain classes of crimes are categorized (for example, every gun crime in Washington state is a misdemeanor, whereas every gun crime in NJ is a felony) some states have differing ideas as to what constitutes minor offenses like trespassing.

or how much power the police have to enforce laws, in NYC cops have almost free reign it seems, here in WA DUI checkpoints are illegal and the cops can't search your garbage can without a warrant.

That still does not really explain why each state needs to have its own code. I am sure the provinces might have differing opinions on crime but overall their laws are are all pretty similar with only minor differences, there is no need for 50 different codes. It also allows issues to be resolved much more quickly, especially if there is crossing of boundaries involved. It also pretty much forces laws to stay progressive and you do not end up with silly things like sodomy laws in the 2000s.
 
The idea of an individual state having so much power within a sovereign country is insanely confusing. It boggles my mind that states like Texas are allowed to restrict abortion, that states like North Carolina or Alabama are allowed to pass laws restricting LGBTQ rights, or that individual states are allowed to make their own laws allowing assault rifles while banning a simple harmless weed from being smoked.

Personally, the only laws that local, non-federal governments should be allowed to make should be speed limits, road construction/repairs, and limited oversight over local taxes. All other laws, such as those regarding a woman's right to choose, should be the sole territory of the national government.

The idea of states themselves makes no sense. Why does each province of this country get to have it's own flag, its own "state anthem", it's own motto, and it's own constitution? This is basically just encouraging secession, regionalism, and state government overreach.

I believe that the idea of states should be abolished, and should be replaced with thirty national district of ten million people each. Each district would have two senators, and it's own local elected board of trustees to oversee local issues such as speed limits. Each district would only be referred by number (for example District 29), and would not have its own flag or constitution. This is to hammer in the fact that the federal government, not the state government, is in charge.

Once again, these districts would only be allowed to make laws regarding local issues, such as roads, building codes, or park funding. Important issues such as the minimum wage, the rights of LGBTQ individuals, the legalization of Marijuana, etc. would be made by the federal government and be the same nationwide.

I know that some of you will say "but the idea of states is in the constitution!" Yes it is. But the constitution is just a piece of paper which can be edited. The constitution in 1789 allowed slavery, treated people of color as subhumans, and banned women from voting. I believe the idea of having fifty sovereign states within our nation is another antiquated idea which needs to go the way of the horse and buggy.

Well, looks like you are in the minority with your position. Too bad.

But I'm curious...what would you call our country since, under your proposal, we couldn't call it The United States of America?
 
That still does not really explain why each state needs to have its own code. I am sure the provinces might have differing opinions on crime but overall their laws are are all pretty similar with only minor differences, there is no need for 50 different codes. It also allows issues to be resolved much more quickly, especially if there is crossing of boundaries involved. It also pretty much forces laws to stay progressive and you do not end up with silly things like sodomy laws in the 2000s.

That still does not really explain why each state needs to have its own code. I am sure the provinces might have differing opinions on crime but overall their laws are are all pretty similar with only minor differences, there is no need for 50 different codes. It also allows issues to be resolved much more quickly, especially if there is crossing of boundaries involved. It also pretty much forces laws to stay progressive and you do not end up with silly things like sodomy laws in the 2000s.

Maybe so, but you seem to view this as a "right-wrong" paradigm and I do not nessecarily think one way (soveriegn empowered states) or the other (provinces acting merely as administrative subdivisions using the same set of rules) is right or wrong.

NJ has a alot of laws different the WA, they're on two opposite sides of the country, Florida is different then Oregon, Montana is different then Mississippi. many of the cultural differences between different regions of the country are deeper then some international differences!

Washington and BC have many things in common, and those societies are two different to merge under the same set of laws IMO, so merging Wash to say Alabama or NY is a discussion over before it began.

Some state insist on clinging to useless laws based on outdated mores, but that's a separate topic, usually these are being struck down when challenged in court.
 
That still does not really explain why each state needs to have its own code. I am sure the provinces might have differing opinions on crime but overall their laws are are all pretty similar with only minor differences, there is no need for 50 different codes. It also allows issues to be resolved much more quickly, especially if there is crossing of boundaries involved. It also pretty much forces laws to stay progressive and you do not end up with silly things like sodomy laws in the 2000s.

Kind of a related thing, in the early 1960s the American Law Institute began work on The Model Penal Code as a way to harmonize state laws, they wrote a model set of "uniform laws" and tried to get states to pass it and harmonize criminal laws. They managed to talk the Idaho legislature into enacting the MPC in 1971, three months later the legislature was called into an emergency session and they repealed the MPC and reverted back to the original Idaho state laws.

why? the laws were written by east coast attorneys, and although the Idaho Supreme Court wanted the MPC adopted, it contained many provisions that enraged important political constietuncies in the state to include

1) changes in use of force laws (opposed by gun owners and the NRA)
2) changes in the entire body of criminal law requires new court precedents to be set (thereby hated by prosecutors and local judges)
3) ommission of morality crimes (Idaho has a substantial Mormon population in the Southern half of the state)
4) elimination of many common law defenses (opposed by trial lawyers)
5) elimination of specific crime of "rustling" (stealing ranch livestock) and folding it in to general theft provisions with lower penalties (opposed by ranchers and farmers)

So in reality, when you're talking absolutely different societies with different values, I do not know that portions of the US are ready for such a thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom