Letting States decide - Political Forum

emptypepsi · #1 (**permalink**) 04-29-2007, 02:24 PM

The Federal Government has grown exponentially in the last 50 years, if not longer. Federal Laws govern decisions like abortion, smoking marijuana, amount of gun-control, the minimum wage, social services/welfare, etc. I believe this is wrong, and such choices should be left up to the taxpayers of the given states.

I believe things like these would be much better done via State Government regulations, keeping things a little closer to the people and out of the hands of the D.C. shmucks. Let the people of Rhode Island make marijuana legal if it fancies them, but let the people of Montana outlaw it if they choose. Let the people of California allow abortion if they like, but allow West Virginia to deny it if they are up for regulating it. If Texas wants to give X amount into state social services, let them, even though their neighbor New Mexico has said they will only require Y into theirs. It's giving more liberty and choice back to the citizens where it belongs and where it was meant to be.

It's akin to letting your kids grow up up a bit by letting them make their own choices instead of trying to watch over them day and night to 'protect' them. Letting states control more society based issues would give them a status of "laboratories of democracy" in which other states could use as a buffer to make their own decisions, based on success or failure in other states. Federally mandating these types of things is akin to demanding a Federal shoe-size to be worn.

This also gives citizens a choice. If they do not like the gay marriage decision in Maine, they can go next door to Vermont where may be more fitting.

Granted all of what they choose to enact does not interfere with the Constitution or any laws not given to the States at this point. Federal government would still regulate that which is it given power to, but types of things as mentioned above would be handed for state regulation.

Any thoughts? Agreements? Concerns? Questions? (Hopefully no) insults?

Brother Oz · #2 (**permalink**) 04-29-2007, 06:42 PM

I agree with most of that, it would be much better for the citizens of each state to decide their own policies.
The one thing I disagree with is whether to make Marijuana legal. The reason is that if it is legal in one state, it's very easy to smuggle into the bordering states.

Slartibartfas · #3 (**permalink**) 04-29-2007, 06:49 PM

I understand the low level approach you support emptypepsi, but I have a question regarding the example of abortion.

Isnt it quite senseless to forbid it one and allow it in the other? You will have as result simply that people will travel to the neighbor state where its legal for the procedure and then return immediately again afterwards. Which makes the ban of abortion the one state a farce.

And another point. When we look at industrial norms. You have a federal sytem with many proponents who often do not go the same way. Thats one of the reasons why the American norms are increasingly pushed back internationally. Because interestingly Europe is more united on this issue and European norms have international importance. The low level approach is here clearly to the disadvantage of the US.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #4 (**permalink**) 04-29-2007, 06:52 PM

Well, I don't agree with some of the overtones of the OP. Government is government, at either the federal or state level. Nannying by one is the same as nannying by the other, if that is what they decide to do.

I'd say the issue is more about pragmatism than anything else. There is a certain amount of pragmatism (in terms of a local population getting what they want, and if all local populations get what they want, then that makes a lot of people happy) involved in these decisions.

I'm going to try to take these issues on one by one.

Abortion: This is a moral issue and the only issue here is a practical one of allowing different folks to have different strokes. I think that at a federal level we should ALL agree on a limit to when abortions should be done. No further than the first trimester. If you are too fucking lazy to get the abortion done before then, then fuck you and have the kid.

As for drugs, well I'd say let this seems to be an interestate issue. On the one hand, there is something to be said of how the founders intended us to run things on the local level (i.e. the 10th Amendment reserved rights to the state and individual). HOWEVER, there could be issues whereby enforcement in a neighboring state may be compromised by a liberal states allowance of drugs, so that's something to consider.

Guns is again a problem that crosses state lines. States that have libertarian gun laws, will have an impact on states that do not. When issues like this become interstate problems, then it's not so simple anymore.

Minimum wage and welfare: I'm afraid these too have interestate effects. If one state has a minimum wage law, then companies will move out of that state and into the other state. This gets states competing to the bottom against each other. Is that a good philosophy to have?

WEB

emptypepsi · #5 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:32 AM

I believe that in time most states will see that making marijuana illegal is going to lead to smuggling and smaller sets of issues than when it was federal, and most states will learn from what is happenening and eventually follow on their own. I think it is better though that it happen at the state level, to allow them that freedom to do so or not.

The same goes for abortion or the minimum wage. To have the federal government maintain a federal minimum wage is akin to requiring a mandate on an across the board shoe size. States have different costs of living that they might want to lower or higher the minimum wage to help meet those needs. If Montana believes that a $4.15 would benefit them, why not let them do it? Because companies may or may not leave? Should it not be up to a free, state central society to make those decisions and learn from them, whether they bear success or not? Furthermore, wouldn't that almost ensure a smoother course of action following any such failure in policy, as they will have seen first hand the effects?

In a federal world, one group in the country makes mistakes and others uffer. This way, it's more localized and not everyone would have to. It allows others to learn from the mistakes. Like I said, laboratories of democracy.

Brother Oz · #6 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

The same goes for abortion or the minimum wage. To have the federal government maintain a federal minimum wage is akin to requiring a mandate on an across the board shoe size. States have different costs of living that they might want to lower or higher the minimum wage to help meet those needs. If Montana believes that a $4.15 would benefit them, why not let them do it? Because companies may or may not leave? Should it not be up to a free, state central society to make those decisions and learn from them, whether they bear success or not? Furthermore, wouldn't that almost ensure a smoother course of action following any such failure in policy, as they will have seen first hand the effects?

Maybe what you need is a base minimum wage, and states can increase it if they want.
Which I believe is what you do at the moment?

emptypepsi · #7 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:48 AM

Yes it is how it is currently implemented, though I don't think the federal government should be dictating it at all. Let's say the federal minimum wage is $7.00 an hour. If taxpayers (that includes business owners) of Nebraska feels that $6.50 an hour is more beneficial to them, should they not be allowed to do it? I don't think businesses would all halt and run to another state just because of that. I think it would give states an incentive to examine what rate actually would work better for them in their conditions, so that everybody wins in the long term. Why would they pack up and leave when they can simply get involved and work towards a higher or lower minimum wage?

Let's say the people in a state want to raise the minimum wage to $7.50. This may or may not create problems, depending on where you may feel politically. Why not let the state implement it and find out? It would give other states something to go by when voting their own provisions.

Nemmie7 · #8 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 07:01 PM

Although the mod has touched on this, what it seems you are looking for is the Federal government following the constitutional restrictions already in place. Quick review for everyone:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
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.

So most of the things the Federal government does is not in their arena. That goes for education, Social Security, Medicare, just to name a few. The attack on States rights began with FDR and LBJ pretty much finished the job. In recent years the Rehnquist Court made major strides in returning rights to the States, one can only hope that the Roberts court will continue the push.

FRYandBENDER · #9 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemmie7

Although the mod has touched on this, what it seems you are looking for is the Federal government following the constitutional restrictions already in place. Quick review for everyone:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
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.

So most of the things the Federal government does is not in their arena. That goes for education, Social Security, Medicare, just to name a few. The attack on States rights began with FDR and LBJ pretty much finished the job. In recent years the Rehnquist Court made major strides in returning rights to the States, one can only hope that the Roberts court will continue the push.

EXACTLY.

There are certain things that the federal government should have a say so in, and they are clearly explained in the constitution. The only way they can justify having most of the powers they have now has been through manipulative "interpretations" of the constitution. Trying to rationalize why the federal government might need to have a say so in something is besides the point. They were never intended to have this much power or say so.

emptypepsi · #10 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 08:25 PM

Yes, precisely my point. I should have thrown in Amendment 10 to begin my OP with. : )