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

[Ganapathy]

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.

 

[MACS-24]

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.

So you're against states' government over reach but want one powerful federal? Another dead thread :inandout:

 

[Phys251]

Not eliminate; just nerf.

 

[Ganapathy]

Not eliminate; just nerf.

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.

 

[Harshaw]

The idea of an individual state having so much power within a sovereign country is insanely confusing. It boggles my mind

This is your own problem. Those of us who understand federalism and why it's a good thing have no such problem.

The constitution in 1789 . . . treated people of color as subhumans, and banned women from voting.

No, it didn't.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I like having 50 states with the autonomy the original Constitution intended for them to have. They all must follow certain very limited federal standards in order for us to be a country, but otherwise each of the states was intended to govern itself and form whatever sorts of society it wished to be. The net effect was 50 laboratories trying this or that or something else to find out what worked to accomplish the best quality of life for its citizens. If one state screwed it up, it didn't mess up all the others, and when the problem is localized within a single state, it is much less difficult to change methods or fix what is wrong. When one central government has the total power to dictate how 330 million people scattered over one of the largest national land masses in the world shall conduct their lives, and it gets it wrong, that is a whole lot of hurt. And it will always get something wrong.

 

[Ganapathy]

I like having 50 states with the autonomy the original Constitution intended for them to have. They all must follow certain very limited federal standards in order for us to be a country, but otherwise each of the states was intended to govern itself and form whatever sorts of society it wished to be. The net effect was 50 laboratories trying this or that or something else to find out what worked to accomplish the best quality of life for its citizens. If one state screwed it up, it didn't mess up all the others, and when the problem is localized within a single state, it is much less difficult to change methods or fix what is wrong. When one central government has the total power to dictate how 330 million people scattered over one of the largest national land masses in the world shall conduct their lives, and it gets it wrong, that is a whole lot of hurt. And it will always get something wrong.

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.

 

[Ganapathy]

This is your own problem. Those of us who understand federalism and why it's a good thing have no such problem.



No, it didn't.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Yes it god damn did. It mentioned that the only people allowed to vote were white male landowners.

 

[Carjosse]

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 and very weak local government.

And it shows with the extensive mismanagement and corruption.

 

[TheGoverness]

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.

Just go back to China since you love it so much.

 

[Ganapathy]

And it shows with the extensive mismanagement and corruption.

Yeah, China is so mismanaged that their literacy rate is 99 percent, while ours is about 70 to 80 percent...

The U.S. Illiteracy Rate Hasn't Changed In 10 Years

 

[Henrin]

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 a horrifically bad example for you to use.

 

[Carjosse]

Yeah, China is so mismanaged that their literacy rate is 99 percent, while ours is about 70 to 80 percent...

The U.S. Illiteracy Rate Hasn't Changed In 10 Years

I bet you believe their economic numbers too. China's actual literacy rate is more like 96% and the US is 99%. You are just going to overlook all the corruption and mismanagement that has cost the lives of millions of people?

 

[TheGoverness]

i bet you believe their economic numbers too. You are just going to overlook all the corruption and mismanagement that has cost the lives of millions of people?

Yep. China is flawless when it comes to him.

That's why he loves Mao so much.

 

[Phys251]

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.

I will admit that fifty states with fifty different sets of laws is a problem. But whether that problem is big enough to abolish states entirely is debatable.

 

[Carjosse]

I will admit that fifty states with fifty different sets of laws is a problem. But whether that problem is big enough to abolish states entirely is debatable.

I never understood having 50 different criminal codes, surely murder is murder no matter where you are.

 

[Harshaw]

Yes it god damn did. It mentioned that the only people allowed to vote were white male landowners.

Cite it. Article, section, clause. Quote the language.

Now.

 

[Henrin]

I never understood having 50 different criminal codes, surely murder is murder no matter where you are.

It's simply part of the package. Liberals like yourself support all reaching authority thinking it is more efficient that way, while your opponents supports localized power because they feel that the more localized authority is the more representative of the people it will be.

 

[Carjosse]

It's simply part of the package. Liberals like yourself support all reaching authority thinking it is more efficient that way, while your opponents supports localized power because they feel that the more localized authority is the more representative of the people it will be.

There is no reason why criminal should vary state by state, it does not make sense. Why do you need 50 different laws to cover the same thing?

 

[Moot]

There is no reason why criminal should vary state by state, it does not make sense. Why do you need 50 different laws to cover the same thing?

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.

 

[Mr Person]

No of course not. But strong "state's rights" positions just cannot work in this day and age.

 

[Harshaw]

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.

The states only have to follow federal law in those areas where federal law governs.

Criminal codes aren't one of those areas. No state has to make something a crime just because there's a federal law against it. And any state can criminalize something federal law doesn't.

The states are also under no obligation to enforce federal law.

 

[Harshaw]

No of course not. But strong "state's rights" positions just cannot work in this day and age.

Why not?

 

[SDET]

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.

I guess that 1.3 billion population makes the scores of millions that died in the famines in Red China insignificant. A country like Red China with forced abortions has no place talking about "reproductive freedom". Is the above post a joke?

I suppose doing away with states works if the goal is to subjugate the people. Sovereign states gives people a choice in what kind of government they want. If your vote doesn't make a difference at the voting booth, you can always choose a voting booth with a "U-Haul" logo on the back.

 

[Cyrylek]

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