It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

State's Rights, please explain

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
now, i've never quite understood the importance of the rights of individual states within the USA and i'd really like it if someone on here could give me their reasoning for the importance of state's rights in the modern world

i'd just like a reasoned, logical explanation here, no arguing or debate.
this is just here to inform myself and the community on the issue, i don't want to turn it into a discussion of the issue in general.




posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
In my opinion, state governments are necessary because of the vast array of cultural differences across America. For example, Californians often have very different views on what they need their government to do than say someone from Maine.

In the absence of state governments, I think we would see lots of oppression from the ruling (federal) government.

---

Furthermore, I believe a large portion of the perceived problems in America stem from a federal government that is trying to administrate too large of a population with varying cultural ideas. The states have little power these days to properly represent their unique people, as the federal government has (unconstitutionally) become a financial and military behemoth.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by iceofspades]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The question is, are we one nation, or are we 50 nations? If we are the latter, then where do the 294 Native American reservations, two incorporates (the District of Columbia and Palmayra Atoll), and five territorial holdings fall in? Is American Samoa supposed to be as self-determining as Florida? What about the Navajo reservation, almost the size of West Virginia?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Quite simply the bluprint of this country --- The Constitution --- placed all rights with the individual states and us as individuals. A large, powerful federal government was something to be avoided. Every state and every region has needs and issues unique to it. Just like any combat soldier will tell you, the battle needs to be fought by the commanders on the ground based upon what they see happening. Not by generals in Washington. Same for the states.

Massively large beauracracies quickly become inefficient. The cost of supporting their infrastructure and overhead quickly limits their inteded missions. The FDA knows this. The Dept of Education should. FEMA?

People have lost sight of the fact that we are supposed to be a Republic with a state-based representative government. The way things are at present are not as they were intended nor as they should be.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
ok, ok

don't bring out the constitution here, i'm asking a question on political philosophy, not on a matter of law.

i'd like to know why we should be doing this in the modern day and a reasoned argument, not just vague accusations that things become inefficient. i want examples from around the world of all the big, bloated governments that don't run a state system that are so horrible.


apc

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
It's the United - States.


Some countries call them provinces.

The US is just a bunch of fairly sovereign republics (the states) joined under a union defined by the Constitution to form a larger encapsulating republic. Are you asking why we don't dissolve the union? Last time someone tried that over half a million people died. Or are you asking why we don't form a solitary republic? It would be illegal and would require scrapping the Constitution, a piece of paper I for one am rather fond of.






[edit on 2-1-2008 by apc]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


again, yet another post that lacks philosophical argument. this isn't about the constitution... it's about WHY



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I answered that. Because it's more efficient to handle functions on a state and regional level. Placing authority into one federal agency makes it susceptible to corruption (only one agency to 'own'), creates a massively expensive bureucracy, is out-of-touch with local conditions.

Take hurricane Katrina. FEMA. Drove millions of dollar of ice around the country for a month or so. Did little else. Had the resources been under the control of MO and LA it would have been more responsive and more easily deployed.

In the general sense, keeping power distributed among the states precludes the possibility of a tyranical government. That is a major problem internationally and a serious one here at home.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
It's the United - States.


It would be illegal and would require scrapping the Constitution, a piece of paper I for one am rather fond of.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by apc]


Not to mention the U.S. is just too big and sparsely populated to even begin to pretend that a few "elected" representatives could adequately ensure their regions got what is best under sole federal control.

As it is Californians in the East part of the state and the North part have little if nothing to do with how their state is run because all of the sway and power is in LA, San Francisco and San Diego. The same goes for people living in New York. The state not the city. Remember, there is a big ass state way up there full of rural farmers and podunk towns? Their lives are run by elitist ivory tower snobs and corporatist NWO types in the city.

Now try to get all of the "bible belt" people to live how the "elitists" want them to and vice versa. That will get you another civil war for sure.

It seems like everyone in this country simultaneously hates to be told how to live and wants to tell others how to live.

States rights prevent that from going too far. Ideally anyway but just as welfare made the resident dependent on the state federal aid is making the state dependent on the fed and that will federalize the nation faster than anything.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by thisguyrighthere]


apc

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


What you're asking is the equivalent of asking why Britain and France don't erase their borders and just call themselves European Unionites. I really don't think that's what they want, nor is it what the individual sovereign states want.

You're asking why don't the states give up their identities. The peoples of each state share enough common values to justify the union, but other than that we are a fairly different people from place to place. Strip the states of their identities and we strip the people of theirs. Most really wouldn't appreciate that.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I answered that. Because it's more efficient to handle functions on a state and regional level. Placing authority into one federal agency makes it susceptible to corruption (only one agency to 'own'), creates a massively expensive bureucracy, is out-of-touch with local conditions.


It would be a good argument, except that the smaller the government body, the more corrupt its bound to be. Ever dealt with your local county government? Ever watched the way the mayor runs your town? The problem is, the smaller you get, the less oversight there is and the more vulnerable the government is to outside influences. I lived up in Alaska for a few years, and let me tell you, the state government there makes the 109th congress look squeaky clean. To say nothing of the way the towns are run. The one I lived in was completely sold out to special interests from outside the state.

On the federal level, there are a lot of eyes turned towards them. Corruption is actually less of a problem because there's actually less to bargain with - A mayor can be bought off for a few bucks, but a senator is far harder to influence simply because he already has more to start with. Now it's far from perfect, but if I have to choose between the corruption of Congress, and the corruption of the local school board? Well... it's a choice between taking it dry, or taking it with lube, isn't it?


Take hurricane Katrina. FEMA. Drove millions of dollar of ice around the country for a month or so. Did little else. Had the resources been under the control of MO and LA it would have been more responsive and more easily deployed.


Had the resources been in the hands of Louisiana, ice would have been sold to Mexico. For starters, the state government ranks up there with Alaska and New Jersey in terms of corruption. More importantly though, there would have been no way to Louisiana to get supplies to New Orleans. The roads were totaled, the national guard was shall we say "busy", and all sorts of other logistical problems.

The issue with FEMA is that it was set up to fail. Let me break it down for you.

You have a organization created by the feds to help out in case of a disaster. As I noted, the states can't always handle these things by themselves, either due to logistics (the aftermath of hurricanes in the south or earthquakes in the west, for example) or because the state is poor and can't divert the funds in the first place, as is the case in places like Alaska or North Dakota. So this is actually a good idea.

Naturally, this group would need decent funding and training. This was not received. FEMA's funding at the time of Katrina was absolutely anemic. Training was at a minimum, resources were nil, and there was little organization or preparedness, due to the lack of money to do anything. The Republican congress, in typical republican style, had declared it "Welfare" and cut funding since there had been no recent disasters.

And then there's the question, who do you put in charge of this organization? Well, personally, I would have hired on a guy who's done this sort of work before, and is good in crunch time. What we got instead of that was a horse breeder who's qualification was that he played polo with the president.

So we have the Republican president putting a clueless crony in charge of a rather crucial organization, and the Republican congress refusing to fund it (though said crony received a nice salary, go figure huh?) and then, when wonder of wonders, the program fails due to these flaws, the Republicans congratulate the crony for "doing his best" and then tell the rest of us that this is clearly why federal programs should be abolished.

Pardon me if I have trouble believing this is in the least coincidental.


In the general sense, keeping power distributed among the states precludes the possibility of a tyranical government. That is a major problem internationally and a serious one here at home.


Not really. What it does is open the door for fifty competing tyrannies.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
What you're asking is the equivalent of asking why Britain and France don't erase their borders and just call themselves European Unionites. I really don't think that's what they want, nor is it what the individual sovereign states want.


no, i'm not. you're comparing a nation to an international union.



You're asking why don't the states give up their identities. The peoples of each state share enough common values to justify the union, but other than that we are a fairly different people from place to place.


really? you've never been to missouri. within 15 miles of st. louis city you get KKK rallies.
within the same city you get people not believing in evolution and people believing in it. there aren't "common values" of a state as much as there once were.



Strip the states of their identities and we strip the people of theirs. Most really wouldn't appreciate that.


bullhockey. show me how individual identity is linked to state identity. someone must, in fact, have NO identity at all to lose their identity when the state ceases to exist.

also... within states there are separate regional identities, those would still exist without a state.


apc

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Uhm... actually I live 30 miles from Lone Jack. If you know anything about Missouri and the KKK, you know about Lone Jack.

We are a union. Did you miss the name? United States. You have read an American History book, yes? You know how the union came to be? The whole independent British colonies... Declaration of Independence... to form a more perfect union... all that jazz? I think you need to review that chapter.

Common values are not always religious. Look at the Civil War. The union was dissolved with the secession of the South as a result of different common values and needs. The North was an industrial society. The South was agrarian. Review that chapter, too.

You're asking why the states don't relinquish their sovereignty and hand over all control to Washington. Would you be willing to hand over control of your home to City Hall? Why would you hand over your state to the feds?

Each state has their own needs, their own way of doing things, and their own people to represent. Our way of doing things here in Missouri is not the same way they do things over in Kansas. We are independent and sovereign. We have no say about what goes on in eachother's state just as my neighbor and I have no say about what goes on in eachother's home. Why should we tear down our walls and shove our houses together when we clearly have our own, different opinions about how to manage our domains?

Dissolving the union and forming a singular republic is a bad idea. Read the Constitution. Understand it. Know why it exists. Know that a massive central government is what our founders fought to protect us from. Don't insult their sacrifice by wishing to throw away everything they've done for us. Learn why they did what they did, and you will realize how dangerous what you desire is for us all.




top topics



 
0

log in

join