Is the USA becoming a group of different countries not states? (Congress, enemies)
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.
Looking at the USA now it seems like states have become so different from each other in their laws, rules and attitudes that they are becoming more like a group of small countries not a united group of states in the same country. Will this change in the future as more laws seem to be passed in each state that agree with each or will it get worse? And is this difference between states a good thing or a bad thing?
Laws and attitudes on abortion, gay rights, bankruptcy,smoking, healthcare, guns,marijuana,language spoken, real estate prices, and so many other things are so different from one state to another you really have to do serious research before moving anywhere .
The weather already is very different from the North to the South and the East to the West. Arizona desert areas look like a different planet ( although a beautiful one ) compared to somewhere like Connecticut but the rest is also changing. Maybe it has always been this way or maybe it is getting worse. Should we try to make the USA more the same in thoughts and rules and come together in agreement on issues or should we separate the laws and attitudes apart even more and set up more differences ? In the future what is the USA you want to see?
Google the term "states rights." This is noting new or unintentional. People want it this way. They cover this in history class in school.
Do you personally believe that there should be more federal laws making the laws of each state agree with each other on controversial issues or should they all remain different? Like for healthcare, marijuana, gay rights etc? Are states rights a good thing or a bad thing? When and where should federal law intervene? What happens when they conflict?
It's a ''federal'' system of states - each with their own history, values and culture within the broad context of the national union. Climate and immigration play a role in perceived differences In how we speak, cook, worship, etc. - but it was pretty much set up that way.
It's a ''federal'' system of states - each with their own history, values and culture within the broad context of the national union. Climate and immigration play a role in perceived differences In how we speak, cook, worship, etc. - but it was pretty much set up that way.
It seems like the rules of marijuana, medicaid expansion and healthcare, smoking will eventually catch up to each other in each state and be the same while other laws like gun control, environmental protection, and abortion will not.
Are the history values and culture of each state different enough to make them more like a separate country then part of the same country? Is it like this in other countries too?
The marijuana issue for instance makes no sense to me. In some states it is legal but in Federal law it is not? How can a state law be in conflict with federal law? Which should change the state law or the Federal law?
I did research states rights and found this info apparently the 10th amendment and the 11th amendment protect states rights as well as something called the " Doctrine of Nullification " created by Thomas Jefferson which seems to say that states can " nullify " laws they think are bad . Here is a quote from the website:
"Nevertheless, defenders of states' rights were concerned that a powerful, consolidated national government would run roughshod over the states. With ratification of the Constitution in doubt, the Framers promised to add protection for the states. Accordingly, the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment stipulates that "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." This amendment became the constitutional foundation for those who wish to promote the rights and powers of the states vis-Ã -vis the federal government.
In the early years of the Republic, states' rights were vigorously protected. An early argument involved whether or not states were subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government. In chisholm v. georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L. Ed. 440 (1793), a South Carolina businessman sued the state of Georgia in order to collect for payment of supplies. The state of Georgia maintained that it was a sovereign body, and so could not be sued since it was not subject to the authority of federal courts. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument and ruled that the conduct of the states was subject to Judicial Review. In response, states' rights advocates pushed for passage of the Eleventh Amendment, which limits the rights of persons to sue a state in federal court.
In 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison proposed the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves to clarify the role of states in checking the powers of the federal government. The resolutions were in response to passage of the alien enemies and sedition acts of 1798 (1 Stat. 570, 1 Stat. 596), which restricted a number of personal liberties. In proposing the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798, Jefferson argued that the "sovereign and independent states" had the right to "interpose" themselves between their citizens and improper national legislative actions and to "nullify" acts of Congress they deemed unconstitutional. The resolutions started the seed of the doctrines of nullification and interposition, later employed by New England states during the War of 1812, and by South Carolina in opposing federal tariff legislation in 1832. "
Last edited by vanguardisle; 03-07-2015 at 09:47 AM..
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.
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.
The police in Kansas are deliberately trying to catch people driving back from Colorado with marijuana? Or do they look the other way in view of Colorado's new law? I would hope the police would have better things to do but then again I do not want people driving stoned for safety reasons. What is the punishment these people receive if caught since it was legal in the state they just came from?
Yes gun laws differ from state to state and isn't it true that ignorance of a law is not considered an excuse to break it? The laws differ so much from one state to another that someone moving to another state has to research all the laws in each state very carefully. Will the USA ever agree on these issues?
The police in Kansas are deliberately trying to catch people driving back from Colorado with marijuana? Or do they look the other way in view of Colorado's new law? I would hope the police would have better things to do but then again I do not want people driving stoned for safety reasons. What is the punishment these people receive if caught since it was legal in the state they just came from?
Yes gun laws differ from state to state and isn't it true that ignorance of a law is not considered an excuse to break it? The laws differ so much from one state to another that someone moving to another state has to research all the laws in each state very carefully. Will the USA ever agree on these issues?
Yes, Kansas police have even set up checkpoints along I-70. They are checking more for possession rather than someone driving under the influence. Punishment is the same as it always has been for possession of marijuana in Kansas, ranging from misdemeanor or felony dependent on the quantity you posses. The police have always watched for drug traffic on I-70, but the checkpoints have only been since marijuana was legalized in Colorado. I have also heard many claims of checkpoints on westbound I-70 checking for travelers carrying large quantities of cash to Colorado, being suspect of purchasing marijuana to traffic it, but I have not seen these with my own eyes.
Ignorance of laws is never an excuse for breaking them, I just feel like I have to do a lot more research than I previously did when I am preparing to travel to a new area. Planning a road trip I have to research every state I will pass through. It would be nice if states could get on the same page for a lot of laws. I understand not everyone is a fan of things like guns or marijuana, but I don't want to be at risk of a felony just because I missed a blurb of information during my legal research.
Yes, Kansas police have even set up checkpoints along I-70. They are checking more for possession rather than someone driving under the influence. Punishment is the same as it always has been for possession of marijuana in Kansas, ranging from misdemeanor or felony dependent on the quantity you posses. The police have always watched for drug traffic on I-70, but the checkpoints have only been since marijuana was legalized in Colorado. I have also heard many claims of checkpoints on westbound I-70 checking for travelers carrying large quantities of cash to Colorado, being suspect of purchasing marijuana to traffic it, but I have not seen these with my own eyes.
Ignorance of laws is never an excuse for breaking them, I just feel like I have to do a lot more research than I previously did when I am preparing to travel to a new area. Planning a road trip I have to research every state I will pass through. It would be nice if states could get on the same page for a lot of laws. I understand not everyone is a fan of things like guns or marijuana, but I don't want to be at risk of a felony just because I missed a blurb of information during my legal research.
Yes exactly and breaking the law innocently or because laws in one state do not match another ties up the legal system and maybe even gives criminal records to those who do not really deserve it.
The idea of Kansas police setting up traps to arrest people who are bringing back something legally purchased in another state sounds crazy to me. What if the marijuana is for medical purposes? How has it reached the point where something can be completely okay in one state but completely against the law in another?
Do you personally believe that there should be more federal laws making the laws of each state agree with each other on controversial issues or should they all remain different? Like for healthcare, marijuana, gay rights etc? Are states rights a good thing or a bad thing? When and where should federal law intervene? What happens when they conflict?
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.
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.
