• 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  • Yes, the idea of states is counterproductive and outdated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
Ganapathy said:
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.
Click to expand...

**** YES THEY STILL APPLY.

State governments still Apply. Be it taxes, or minimum wage. You tell me that the minimum wage should be $95 per hour and you are from California...well that may be acceptable there...but try having that same wage in a town in po dunk Alabama with a lower cost of living where the business owner doesn't even make that money.

Furthermore you have Game laws, you have wildlife laws, different cultural necessities (mandating we speak French in Florida would make no sense unlike in a state that borders Canada where there is an actual French speaking population). Then you have to consider state laws on construction and disaster management. I mean there are the ways state laws are written and such. How their courts.

Your argument is to get of them because you don't think they serve a purpose, and even if you believe them to be outdated...your proposal would cost much more money than simply leaving the current working and effective system that has worked for how long? Over 200 years?


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
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.
Click to expand...

We had some of those issues too with the 1968-69 Criminal Code Amendment. For fun you can watch Pierre Trudeau as Justice Minster talking about that here. It became an important part of legal history in Canada and we are fine, and we also have a diverse population.
 
No, no, no.

No.

Power and authority should be as localized as possible. Frankly I believe more power should be vested at the city level. The people who have the most authority over you should be part of your community, not living hundreds or thousands of miles away. Higher levels of government should only interfere when more local government is infringing on the rights and civil liberties of the People.
 
Carjosse said:
We had some of those issues too with the 1968-69 Criminal Code Amendment. For fun you can watch Pierre Trudeau as Justice Minster talking about that here. It became an important part of legal history in Canada and we are fine, and we also have a diverse population.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it did. but we're not only talking homosexuality related offenses here that cause problems with criminal codes.

I simply do not wish to be governed on the values of people who do not know people like me. Canada does not have anywhere near the diverse cultural landscape america does, it simply does not. California has more residents then your entire country. and this is not to say we're better then you, only to point out why the Canada model doesn't work.

right there is substantial controversy in the US involving issues such as

>Marijuana
>Drug Sentencing
>Guns
>sentencing guidelines in general
>whether or not capital punushment is appropriate and under what circumstances

etc.

so how do you propose we reach a universal standard on criminal laws?

I like the fact legal marijuana is here in WA and I like being able to possess a handgun for personal protection "just because"

both these things are illegal in New York, so does New York get forced to adopt our model? or do we get forced to accept NYs model?

at what point is it more beneficial that my laws are decided by people who live in my area versus thousands of miles away (my state representative lives in my town and works at the fire station just up the road from me, versus congress people from other states for example)
>
 
It's all about the idea of the separation of powers. It also stems from the fact that many americans came from different european countries such as UK, france, and Prussia so it made more sense to have state governments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom