CDZ Why Not Let States Decide?

[Asclepias]

"Why dont you read the OP then my first post and get back to me. It was a hypothetical question regarding if states had the power to decide instead of the feds."

OP:

"We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

"I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own."

States (legal fictions) cannot decide, therefore people in those geographical areas where the idea of a legal fiction must decide for the State, since, as a matter of demonstrable fact, States cannot decide.

So the question is then a question concerning whose decision (an individual living, breathing, human being) is the decision that matters to anyone, anywhere, anytime, in any case.

A. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as a State (at least 50 in number).
B. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as The United States of America (one in number).
C. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as The Federal Reserve (one in number).
D. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as The World Bank (one in number).

Which decisions were considered as the decisions worthy of concern according to the OP?

"...for which there is no consensus..."

If the idea is to give all authority to a fictitious entity, or many fictitious entities instead of one dominant fictitious entity, so as then to obey any order - no matter how criminal the order - and obey that order from that single (or those many) fictitious entities without question, then that hook, line, and sinker swallowed whole by any individual, anywhere, anytime, is their business, and not my business, because I do not agree with, and I do not share such a ridiculous, an destructive, idea.

I read the OP, I'm getting back to you (Asclepias), and it appears to me as if you may (or may not) share the idea that a fictitious entity can issue legal orders that must be obeyed without question. I don't share that idea, if that is the idea you share. The idea I share, and the idea I agree with, and the idea that drives me to volunteer as a jurist in trial by jury, is the idea that every single ordered issued by every single individual in any place at any time can be questioned by the one receiving the order to obey, and there is a process called due process of law that works effectively in defense of every innocent victim who ever is faced with the individual decision to obey, or not obey, what they truly believe to be a criminal order issued by a criminal, especially when the criminal issuing the criminal order is claiming to be a lawful authority.

That my dear friends in Liberty is what a Declaration of Independence was about, and a decision was made decisively in favor of rule of law instead of blind obedience to fiction without question.

Your circumlocution aside. Its obvious you are not intellectualizing what you are reading. Simply stated, if states had the power to decide things like gay marriage or slavery for example, it would not be a good thing. There needs to be a federal dictate to protect the civil rights of all people or nutcases will do things like bringing back slavery using the Corwin Amendment.

 

[toxicmedia]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

The states do not have constitutional authority, hence cannot pass laws that deny the constitutional rights of that state's citizens.

 

[Josf]

"Your circumlocution aside. Its obvious you are not intellectualizing what you are reading. Simply stated, if states had the power to decide things like gay marriage or slavery for example, it would not be a good thing. There needs to be a federal dictate to protect the civil rights of all people or nutcases will do things like bringing back slavery using the Corwin Amendment."

_____________________________________________________________
circumlocution
the use of many words where fewer would do, especially in a deliberate attempt to be vague or evasive
______________________________________________________________

The tactics above can be accurately accounted for and understood as character assassination, which is against the concept of rule of law, or voluntary agreement to refrain from such things as character assassination.

A.
"Your circumlocution aside."

The tactic there is called the Man of Straw argument. The idea is to target the individual who is then attacked by those words, as those words create a fictional version of the target. The fictional version of the target is said to be made up of straw because the fictional version is made up of fictional weakness, weak character traits, which are then easy to tear apart, as if the target is made of weak straw. The character assassin changes the subject from the subject matter, and turns the subject into a false version of the targets character, and the false version of the targets character is imagined to be weak of character, which sets up thereby an easy to destroy weak character.

"Your circumlocution aside."

If in fact the author of the words above had set aside something then those words quoted above would not appear in print, published in fact, demonstrated as fact as those words are cut and pasted from the original author of those words. Those words are stated as if that subjective opinion is a factual statement, as if the Man of Straw created by the author of those words actually existed, yet no such individual guilty of "deliberate attempt to be vague or evasive" exists. In fact the target of the character assassination - me - now demonstrates the opposite of the false claim against me, as I deliberately attempt to focus attention accurately instead of vague or evasive goals.

B.
"Its obvious you are not intellectualizing what you are reading."

Again there is a claim concerning what someone is doing, which redirects away from the actual topic, and the direction of focus is turned to the target of character assassination, instead of the actual subject matter of the topic. My actual words remain to be published in their original form whereby my actual words stand as precisely what they are, without the need to twist, redefine, subjectively opinionate upon them, "intellectualize" them, in any way foreign, or false, as to the actual words written, and published from me to the members of this forum.

Now onto the topic:

"Simply stated, if states had the power to decide things...." SNIP

There are at least 50 States now, which are more than the 13 States that were formed at the time the original Federation was formed. At that time there was a battle fought in the effort to define the meaning of these legal fictions, these States, and these competitive ideas knowable as Confederation, Federation, Country, Nation, Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, or Dictatorship, Tyranny, Monarchy, and Consolidated Government.

There were then, as there remains to be now, at least 2 major sides in the battle over POWER of government.

1. Those agreeing that trial by jury was the palladium of Liberty, the law of the land, and the due process due everyone without exception.
2. Those agreeing that only those members in their exclusive club can be allowed to command the power to decide any matter, anywhere, anytime.

When someone resorts to libel, or character assassination, on a public access forum, despite the well published rules governing the forum members, that individual shows their true colors as to which side they are on in fact.

What I can offer, returning to the subject matter, is now two links and two quotes, where the people offering the information are decidedly on the side of voluntary mutual defense of the innocent rather than the other, dictatorial, side.

1.
Reclaiming the American Revolution The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy William Watkins 9781403963031 Amazon.com Books

______________________________________________________________________
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
_________________________________________________________________________

There is much more to the educational material in the source of the above explanation of the stark differences between a voluntary mutual defense association, or federation, and a dictatorship whereby one single POWER issued any order, no matter how criminal, and everyone is expected to obey without question.

1.
Anti-Federalist Papers

________________________________________________________________________
And in order to give the federal courts jurisdiction of an action, between citizens of the same state, in common acceptation - may not a court allow the plaintiff to say, he is a citizen of one state, and the defendant a citizen of another without carrying legal fictions so far, by any means, as they have been carried by the courts of King's Bench and Exchequer, in order to bring causes within their cognizance? Further, the federal city and districts, will be totally distinct from any state, and a citizen of a state will not of course be subject of any of them.
__________________________________________________________________________

In order to "get it" an individual may peruse the entire message, rather than the sound bite quoted.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Because of incorporation , which was never the founders' intent.

But , if we return to that standard , you better be prepared to realize that states would also be able to decide on gun ownership , etc etc.

 

[RKMBrown]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Because of incorporation , which was never the founders' intent.

But , if we return to that standard , you better be prepared to realize that states would also be able to decide on gun ownership , etc etc.

State power made more sense back when the senators were selected by the state legislatures and back before the feds were allowed to tax the shit out of the people and turn around and give that money to the states to implement federal programs. If you want to go back to full up statehood, your gonna need to revoke the 14th, the 16th, and the 17th amendments. Given that I live in one of the states that believes in liberty I'd be good with doing that.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Because of incorporation , which was never the founders' intent.

But , if we return to that standard , you better be prepared to realize that states would also be able to decide on gun ownership , etc etc.

State power made more sense back when the senators were selected by the state legislatures and back before the feds were allowed to tax the shit out of the people and turn around and give that money to the states to implement federal programs. If you want to go back to full up statehood, your gonna need to revoke the 14th, the 16th, and the 17th amendments. Given that I live in one of the states that believes in liberty I'd be good with doing that.

I don't think there is any going back to be done at this point. Too many sheep have just accepted the almighty federal government.

 

[RKMBrown]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Because of incorporation , which was never the founders' intent.

But , if we return to that standard , you better be prepared to realize that states would also be able to decide on gun ownership , etc etc.

State power made more sense back when the senators were selected by the state legislatures and back before the feds were allowed to tax the shit out of the people and turn around and give that money to the states to implement federal programs. If you want to go back to full up statehood, your gonna need to revoke the 14th, the 16th, and the 17th amendments. Given that I live in one of the states that believes in liberty I'd be good with doing that.

I don't think there is any going back to be done at this point. Too many sheep have just accepted the almighty federal government.

No skin off their back, they are not paying for it.

 

[PratchettFan]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Here's a better idea. Why not just take it completely out of the state's hands and have one law for all Americans? Just like we were a nation.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Here's a better idea. Why not just take it completely out of the state's hands and have one law for all Americans? Just like we were a nation.

You're "better idea" is completely counter to what this nation was founded on.

We are a UNION of states, not one large state

 

[PratchettFan]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Here's a better idea. Why not just take it completely out of the state's hands and have one law for all Americans? Just like we were a nation.

You're "better idea" is completely counter to what this nation was founded on.

We are a UNION of states, not one large state

Mine was a counter idea. If we are going to go one way or the other, I prefer a single nation to a loose confederation.

 

[Josf]

"Mine was a counter idea. If we are going to go one way or the other, I prefer a single nation to a loose confederation."

Obviously your side is winning by some accurate measures.

Page 4 Luther Martin: Member of the 1787 Con Con
__________________________________________
The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.
________________________________________________________________
But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.
______________________________________________________

Note:
".. we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States."

Back To Top

PM

Quote

Reply

 

[jwoodie]

The states do not have constitutional authority, hence cannot pass laws that deny the constitutional rights of that state's citizens.

What "constitution rights" are you referring to? Please specify and cite specific constitutional authority.

 

[toxicmedia]

The states do not have constitutional authority, hence cannot pass laws that deny the constitutional rights of that state's citizens.

What "constitution rights" are you referring to? Please specify and cite specific constitutional authority.

No........because I always hate exchanges that start out this way.

No offense

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Because of incorporation , which was never the founders' intent.

But , if we return to that standard , you better be prepared to realize that states would also be able to decide on gun ownership , etc etc.

State power made more sense back when the senators were selected by the state legislatures and back before the feds were allowed to tax the shit out of the people and turn around and give that money to the states to implement federal programs. If you want to go back to full up statehood, your gonna need to revoke the 14th, the 16th, and the 17th amendments. Given that I live in one of the states that believes in liberty I'd be good with doing that.

But many other states don't 'believe in liberty,' they seek instead to deny the American citizens residing in the states their civil rights, such as gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law and women their right to privacy; consequently, the post Civil War Amendments remain very much in need to safeguard citizens' freedoms and liberties from attack by the states.

And prior to the post Civil War Amendments, the states were not 'sovereign,' they were still subject to the rule of law, where the Federal government, Federal laws, and rulings by Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, as intended by the Framers, and as acknowledge by Article VI of the Constitution.

The states have the right to enact measures they consider necessary and proper, provided those measures comport with the Constitution and its case law; and when the states fail in that regard, the courts are compelled to invalidate measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law.

 

[Syriusly]

The states do not have constitutional authority, hence cannot pass laws that deny the constitutional rights of that state's citizens.

What "constitution rights" are you referring to? Please specify and cite specific constitutional authority.

Maybe you didn't notice that this was already argued before the Supreme Court?

14th Amendment- equal treatment before the law and right to due process. Its all part of the arguments.

Or you can read any one of the many Federal judges decisions that found that state laws were violating the Constitution.

 

[oldernwiser]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

I think that states already decide state's issues. They get to set their own speed limits, decide on a variety of civil laws and the penalties applied, etc. Essentially, they decide on issues that are only applicable to a particular state.

When you get get into abortion, gay marriage, education, and the like, these are issues which could potentially cross state lines or be constitutionally protected. Gay marriage is one of those issues - if I happen to be legally married to a partner of the same sex in one state, and one of our jobs requires us to move to a state which doesn't recognize the union, what happens? America is a free country, but does a state have the right to prevent me from living there with my spouse? It gets worse, what if that state rejects adoption by homosexual couples and I also have kids? Does the state have the right to remove those kids and annul the adoption? Do I lose my right to choose who my next of kin should be or who will make my health choices in the event that I can't make them myself simply because I moved into a new state? In this situation, it makes no sense whatsoever to decide at a state level. When it comes to freedoms, if I can legally do a thing in Massachusetts, I should be able to that same thing in California and all points between. To me, that's what UNITED States means. Assigning those freedoms to per state choice is tantamount to dissolution of the Republic.

 

[toxicmedia]

Lack of a cohesive central strategy, and military planning, is another big reason the south lost the war of northern agression

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

I think that states already decide state's issues. They get to set their own speed limits, decide on a variety of civil laws and the penalties applied, etc. Essentially, they decide on issues that are only applicable to a particular state.

When you get get into abortion, gay marriage, education, and the like, these are issues which could potentially cross state lines or be constitutionally protected. Gay marriage is one of those issues - if I happen to be legally married to a partner of the same sex in one state, and one of our jobs requires us to move to a state which doesn't recognize the union, what happens? America is a free country, but does a state have the right to prevent me from living there with my spouse? It gets worse, what if that state rejects adoption by homosexual couples and I also have kids? Does the state have the right to remove those kids and annul the adoption? Do I lose my right to choose who my next of kin should be or who will make my health choices in the event that I can't make them myself simply because I moved into a new state? In this situation, it makes no sense whatsoever to decide at a state level. When it comes to freedoms, if I can legally do a thing in Massachusetts, I should be able to that same thing in California and all points between. To me, that's what UNITED States means. Assigning those freedoms to per state choice is tantamount to dissolution of the Republic.

Correct.

Citizens have the fundamental right to move freely about the country, to live in any state or jurisdiction they so desire; and as they move freely about the county their inalienable rights and liberties move with them, immune from attack by the states.

Moreover, citizens cannot be compelled to 'relocate' to another state or jurisdiction as a 'remedy' to their state of residence seeking to violate their fundamental, inalienable rights.

It was the original intent of the Founding Generation to create one Nation, one people, subject to one National government, where the relationship between the people and their National government is free from interference by the states.

 

[oldernwiser]

When the people agree to abide by the suggestions offered through rule of law secured with a working federation the people in the states decide.

That is explained here:
Reclaiming the American Revolution The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy William Watkins 9781403963031 Amazon.com Books

Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you want to know why the working federation was replaced by the counterfeit version working for the criminals now, then a good start is here:
Avalon Project - Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates Chief Justice of the State of New York and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention

Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia in the year 1787
___________________________________________________
Page 13 Luther Martin

One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.
____________________________________________________

I think you might be downplaying the facility with which people can vote with their feet. Moving to a neighboring state which is mostly industrial from a predominantly agricultural state could be daunting enough to preclude such a move. Family and ethnic ties to a region also have to be considered.

Also, there are states where personal views are better reflected than in the state where one currently resides, and if voting with one's feet were the way to go then there would be states where the Bible was the only educational text, and this argument would be moot. The fact is, we DON'T vote with our feet these days. We vote with our ballots and through considerable contributions to sympathetic politicians who promote our views. The idea of State's Rights has been denigrated to having the right politicians in office at the right time to be able to push people who don't share OUR views (or won't subjugate themselves to them) out of the state - essentially, casting them out into the wilderness.

At some point doesn't the state of North Carolina become the Country of North Carolina?

 

[auditor0007]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Sorry, but the Civil War is really the starting point to all of this, so it must be included in the reasoning behind why we give the federal government most of the power in making the big decisions versus allowing states to do whatever they choose. Back during the Civil War a decision was made that on the big issues, we were all going to play by the same rules. No slavery in some states but not in others. No abortion bans in some states but not in others. No gay marriage bans in some states but not in others. A long time ago, it was fairly well decided that we were going to have a stronger central government with states still keeping certain rights but with less power.

Why is this good or is it good? I believe it is. Let's look at gay marriage. If a couple is married in one state, why should their marriage not be recognized in another state if they should choose to move? If a state chose not to recognize a gay marriage from another state, then would it not reason that they could not recognize any marriage from another state? That is my viewpoint. I'm sure others will disagree but I believe the argument for consistency makes sense.