Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The states have always had differing laws and regulations, this is nothing new. Vehicle inspections and emissions, noise, curfew, etc. Nothing that would typically get you into major legal trouble. What is new is the disparity of laws between the states. It seems to be a more recent issue that you can be in one state doing a completely legal activity - that in the next state is a felony and would land you in prison.
Take the Colorado - Kansas border for instance. There is a lot of traffic on I-70 of people going to Colorado to enjoy some marijuana, and then driving back to Kansas. Kansas has been running all kinds of checkpoints on the highway to arrest travelers who just a few miles down the road had been within legal rights of substance possession and use.
Another example that I find more and more is gun possession and carry rights. I am a CCW license holder, I carry my gun often at home and travel with it as well. Every state has differing laws on concealed carry - not all states recognize others' licenses, and even if they do they may have very different laws on when and where you can legally carry your firearm. Some states allow you to carry into a bar as long as you don't drink, others it is illegal to even possess the firearm in a bar even if you are stone-sober.
As a more personal viewpoint, it seems that the larger disparity between states is people's attitudes on the issues rather than state laws. On the firearm example again, I live in the Midwest, it's relatively common for someone to be carrying a firearm, and at the airport I often see people checking their firearms for travel. No one freaks out at the ticket counter when you pull a handgun from your suitcase to prove to the ticket agent that it is unloaded and locked. When I flew out of Baltimore, I underwent the same procedure: remove my weapon from the case to prove to the agent that it was unloaded. The woman who was next to me checking her bag looked like she was about to have a heart attack as soon as she saw my firearm, she was scared out of her wits just at the presence of an unloaded weapon in one of the most secure environments you could possibly be in.
There have always been differences between states. You don't think that some states allowing human slavery and others not was a "disparity of laws"? You don't think that some states prohibiting the sale of alcohol long after Prohibition ended while most allowed it was not a "disparity of laws"? In some states it was illegal for stores and other businesses to be open on Sundays until the Supreme Court struck down so-called "blue laws".
The fact is that years ago, when people seldom traveled more than 50-100 miles from where they were born, there were many more differences among states than there are today. The Civil War was the first event that started the US towards a national culture, but it really wasn't until during/after WW II when Americans began moving around the country a lot, that regional cultures began to morph into a national culture. The rise of mass media, especially TV in the 1950s, has spurred that. The Internet is just more of the same.
The real differences today are not between states but between urban and rural. States that have large concentrations of urban population tend toward "progressive" ideas. States that have smaller urban populations tend toward more "conservative" ideas. There are frequently deeper divisions within states than between similar areas of neighboring states, especially in states where one big urban metro dominates the rest of the state, such as in New York (NYC), Illinois (Chicago), Georgia (Atlanta), Colorado (Denver).
In a word no. We have the Supreme Court that handles Constitutional matters and how laws should be applied across the country. No reason Congress should have unlimited power when it comes passing not just federal laws but state laws and applying them across all the states. That would be a recipe for disaster since one size would not fit all.
You say one size would not fit all, but then how do you decide which laws states should all agree on and which laws they should be allowed to make their own separate decisions on?
You are saying states rights then help to limit the power of the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court? Instead of 3 branches of government balancing each other out the states rights add a 4th balance of power?
In the marijuana legalization issue it seems that some states are ignoring federal law and that the law is slowly being changed. Will that start to happen on other issues? That the law will first be ignored then changed?
You say one size would not fit all, but then how do you decide which laws states should all agree on and which laws they should be allowed to make their own separate decisions on?
I think the constitution does a fairly good job at in theory and for the most part in practice. Interstate & Intrastate commerce and criminal just is pretty divided evenly for the most part IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle
You are saying states rights then help to limit the power of the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court? Instead of 3 branches of government balancing each other out the states rights add a 4th balance of power?
Technically state are suppose to balance out the power of the federal government. Originally Senators weren't elected and were instead appointed by the states and reflected the various interests of the state governments. As far as federalism goes that is actually more ideal for having a working government then electing Senators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle
In the marijuana legalization issue it seems that some states are ignoring federal law and that the law is slowly being changed. Will that start to happen on other issues? That the law will first be ignored then changed?
The real issue with Marijuana is the fact the federal government has stopped enforcing federal law in regards to Marijuana. The states passing laws legalizing Marijuana in reality are irrelevant since the product can be carried across state lines making it interstate commerce in which the federal government can regulate. If the next US President wants to go after Marijuana they could do so legally under interstate commerce. Now if the states want to legalize something like prostitution for example the federal government can't do anything about it because it's a service that doesn't cross state lines so it is intrastate commerce.
As far as the law being ignored then changed goes that seems to be where Marijuana is currently heading towards in the United States.
I support the 10th an 11th amendments to the fullest extent and think the federal gvt has been very successful and up surping state rights. As one example, where does any one have proof that the federal gvt should be dictating and regulating the states on education? The states and the people should decide their own destiny. If Mass thinks spending gobs of money on education and their students rank near the top good for them. But if Idaho decides to spend less and cranks out a bunch of dolts well that is on them.
With more state rights there is more freedom. If you do not like the gun laws, pot laws, are taxed too much you can get up in move to another state of your choosing. Where if we have a federal gvt deciding every issue you are trapped like a rat.
Differing laws allow people to "vote with their feet."
That's the advantage of the United States of America.
Imposition of national laws will eradicate that choice.
^This. If I was forced to live under the same exact laws being passed in New England or the Deep South then I would protest if not flat out riot and many Americans who don't live in those two regions would do the same. Values and views do differ across the United States and one size fits all doesn't work. That is why in places like the United Kingdom powers they have been having a devolution of powers because people were fed up with living completely under England. Not trying to make this political but this is the reason why progressive politics are not popular in the United States because they push for a one size fits all way of doing things which offends most Americans.
its always been a huge country and regional different in many ways. Its really strange when you think of it that liberals are doing more for states rights in ignoring federal laws than any group really. No doubt the others more conservative will pickup the ball over time. Even Obama is encouraging it by his actions.
It does feel like the states are striking back at a heavy handed federal Gov. that wants to dictate to them what their laws will be. As others have stated the Feds have all encompassing laws and the states are allowed to make up their own.
The trouble is when the Feds really get pushing their agendas such as Obama care, Gun Laws, Immigration Laws/Amnesty, Education etc etc.. the states stand up against this assault on its people and challenge the rulings.
America used to be the great melting pot but today every group wants its own pot to simmer in, some demand more than that and this will be the ruin of America.
Not to mention when the federal government passes huge legislation like Obamacare or the Americans with Disabilities Act is the fact the federal government passes these laws and then tells the states to "figure it out" on how to pay for these programs. States can't print money and so you get higher taxes and cuts in state programs so they can afford these type of programs. The devil is really in the details here. To be fair both Republican and Democrat Presidents and Congresses controlled by both parties have done this. You can't run a country like the United States as unitary nation you got run it as a federation. That means powers between the federal government and the state governments and not just the federal government getting it's way all the time.
In the current fight for gay rights the south is fighting it very hard and has passed by public vote laws saying marriage should be between a man and a woman. The Alabama Supreme Court has openly defied a federal ruling to allow gay marriage in their state based on the wording of their state constitution and on a law their voters passed in 1998. They are also about to pass a religious freedom bill that will allow ministers to refuse to marry gay people based on a religious objection.
Can Alabama go against the Supreme Court if they rule in favor of gay marriage in a few months? How far can state rights go to ignore federal laws on any issue they disagree with ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
