CDZ Why Not Let States Decide?

[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.

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.

I do agree that consistency is a good thing. As I said above, with states reasserting their home rule status, at some point the Republic dissolves into 50 separate countries each with their own government and rights and immigration policies.

 

[Josf]

"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."

If you think I am in any way failing to understand something then your credit given to me, by you, is negative, and I can only guess, assume, or gamble on possible reasons.

The Federal idea (based upon republican ideas, and based upon common laws of free, defensive, people) worked between 1776 and 1787. The example of "the facility with which people can vote with their feet" was exemplified by refugees running away, like runaway slaves, from the tyranny (criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law) in England and other places in Europe.

Do I get the message? People had the freedom to vote with their feet from England, on sailing ships, to America before 1776, much before 1776. And they brought with them the concept of rule of law, because they were running from NO rule of law i.e. despotism/tyranny/slavery/crime under the color of law.

I found a slave being set free in a trial by jury case in 1656, so rule of law was here in the form of trial by jury, borrowed from England, and before that is was borrowed from the Saxons, and the American version still has all the necessary ingredients to flourish, adapt, and improve, if we the people want to return to a federal principle based upon republican principles (a.k.a. democracy of old, such as Athens, not new, such as so called majority rule, which is a lie), since we still have on the books the Bill of Rights.

So free people freely choose to vote with their feet from England to America, with rule of law, exemplified at least in 1656.

Fast forward to Shays's Rebellion, for another case of voting with feet, and if you think I am in any way missing something, then the next link exemplified what I did not miss, and if you see anything wrong in this next link, then I can certainly use corrective information.



After trial by jury was usurped in Massachussets, after the last battle of the Revolutionary War in Massachussets (a free and independent people in a free State that was usurped by criminals), the targeted slaves (rebels) fled out of that state and into a free country where the criminals have not yet taken over: voting with their feet.

Point 2 on voting with their feet involves the efforts of free people in free states to formally, publicly, acknowledge, by way of declaration, that people are independent beings, including black people, as in Rhode Island those people in that independent state outlawed the slave trade. Pennsylvania was soon to follow. So there again was the potential for people, including black slaves, to leave a despotic area, or tyrannical state, voting with their feet, but not having to get back on a ship to cross 3000 miles of ocean, to find sanctuary, Liberty, defense, in a free, independent, country, or state, which was, at least on the books, Rhode Island, which was, at least on the books, a voluntary member of the working federation which already had at least 6 Presidents of The United States in Congress Assembled, including Richard Henry Lee.

With a President like Richard Henry Lee in charge of a working federation (not a counterfeit, monopoly, "nation state") would any runaway slaves, white, brown, red, or black, be ordered by the "leader of the free world" to be strung up by a tree as an example of what happens to people daring to run from one criminal state to an independent, rule of law, state?

Back to your welcome words:

"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."

Rule of law includes the idea of peaceful remedy tried in trials by jury, which are trials by the country, due to the employment of sortition, which was borrowed from ancient Athens Greece; which is "election" by lot, or random selection. When the criminals take-over government, on the other hand, torture and mass murder is "legal" at their pleasure. So federation, as an idea, works as exemplified in the Shays's Rebellion (so called) example. Push comes to shove, and the ones doing the shoving are intent upon enslaving or worse, and therefore it is either independence, freedom, in another place, or hanging from a rope, or worse, in this place. People cross oceans to be free from the rope, or worse, which is the torture of slavery.

Hanging from a rope, or worse, is less daunting than a costly move?

"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."

As it happened the tyrannical state of Massachussets exemplifies (perhaps) this idea contained in the words quoted above. The working federation was (and is, and will always be) only as good as there are at least a few good people still living.

" The fact is, we DON'T vote with our feet these days."

I did. My father did. Retirees these days are voting with their feet in numbers that defy your all inclusive word "we" followed by the capitals DON'T. The point is that this is no longer a working federation, it is a Nation State, or limited liability legal fiction owned by foreign interests/investors. It can be a working federation, again, since rule of law is still an idea shared by plenty of "we" and there are still, today, those Bill of Rights on the books.

"We vote with our ballots and through considerable contributions to sympathetic politicians who promote our views."

I voted for Ross Perot once, for Ron Paul twice. By the time I was on the ballot for my 40th Congressional District in California, I knew, and understood, first hand, how "voting" is rigged.

The concept of rule by majority was long ago (ancient Athens) understood to be against rule of law. Today few people understand, and many people are fooled by the ruse.

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

If you understand trial by the country, as in rule of law, due process, the law of the land, or legem terrae, or common laws of free people, then the answer is yes, in cases involving someone outside of the country accused of perpetrating a crime inside the country.

 

[pwjohn]

Big Government right wingers want lots and lots of invasive laws. They don't get that government does not belong in our private lives. Not in our bedrooms, not in control of our most personal and private issues.

Instead of asking why states should not be Peeping Toms, how about you ask why they should?

Yup, repubs are in our bedrooms and dems are in our wallets. What to do? What to do?

 

[Bush92]

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.

They should...but why should liberals worry about that, all they have to do is control federal bureaucracy and news media. Then you have minority rule.

 

[daws101]

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

and the south was out produced in armaments ,less men etc.

 

[PratchettFan]

Big Government right wingers want lots and lots of invasive laws. They don't get that government does not belong in our private lives. Not in our bedrooms, not in control of our most personal and private issues.

Instead of asking why states should not be Peeping Toms, how about you ask why they should?

Yup, repubs are in our bedrooms and dems are in our wallets. What to do? What to do?

Take the Republican Party back from the social conservatives - who are just as much in your wallet as the Democrats.

 

[daws101]

Big Government right wingers want lots and lots of invasive laws. They don't get that government does not belong in our private lives. Not in our bedrooms, not in control of our most personal and private issues.

Instead of asking why states should not be Peeping Toms, how about you ask why they should?

Yup, repubs are in our bedrooms and dems are in our wallets. What to do? What to do?

Take the Republican Party back from the social conservatives - who are just as much in your wallet as the Democrats.

that would make god angry!

 

[rdean]

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 know why:

Google

 

[PratchettFan]

Big Government right wingers want lots and lots of invasive laws. They don't get that government does not belong in our private lives. Not in our bedrooms, not in control of our most personal and private issues.

Instead of asking why states should not be Peeping Toms, how about you ask why they should?

Yup, repubs are in our bedrooms and dems are in our wallets. What to do? What to do?

Take the Republican Party back from the social conservatives - who are just as much in your wallet as the Democrats.

that would make god angry!

Nah. I talked it over with her and she's fine with that.

 

[jwoodie]

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

Maybe you didn't notice my OP?

 

[jwoodie]

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.

I think you are presenting a false dilemma: States are already bound to accept legal determinations (e.g., marriages, divorces, adoptions, etc.) made in other states. Your argument for complete uniformity of all state laws violates the basic Constitutional premise of State Sovereignty and would give the federal government the unfettered authority to rule by administrative decree.

 

[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.

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.

I think you are presenting a false dilemma: States are already bound to accept legal determinations (e.g., marriages, divorces, adoptions, etc.) made in other states. Your argument for complete uniformity of all state laws violates the basic Constitutional premise of State Sovereignty and would give the federal government the unfettered authority to rule by administrative decree.

Not a false dilemma. It's a fact that states are currently discriminating by not accepting legal determinations made in other states wrt "gay marriage."

 

[prison/con.net]

people ARE free to move to states where they feel better about living, ya know.

 

[RKMBrown]

people ARE free to move to states where they feel better about living, ya know.

They are also free to file laws suits for damages.

 

[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.

I think you are presenting a false dilemma: States are already bound to accept legal determinations (e.g., marriages, divorces, adoptions, etc.) made in other states. Your argument for complete uniformity of all state laws violates the basic Constitutional premise of State Sovereignty and would give the federal government the unfettered authority to rule by administrative decree.

Incorrect.

No one is arguing for the 'uniformity' of state laws; rather, whatever laws the states might enact, they must afford the American citizens residing in the states access to those laws, such as same-sex couples access to marriage law.

'State sovereignty' does not exist to the extent that the states may ignore Federal law, or the Federal Constitution, its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts; likewise, the states may not seek to deny citizens equal protection of (equal access to) state laws, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, the issue has nothing to do with giving the Federal government the 'unfettered authority' to rule by 'administrative decree,' whatever that's supposed to mean – the states are at liberty to enact the laws that they deem necessary and proper, provided such laws do not conflict with Federal law and comport with the Constitution and its case law.

In fact, if the states were to simply enact measures in good faith and in accordance with Constitutional jurisprudence, the Federal courts in theory would never need to again become involved; Federal courts become involved only when the states act in bad faith and contrary to the Constitution and its case law, where citizens so disadvantaged have no other recourse than to file suit to seek relief.

Consequently, the states have only themselves to blame for their un-Constitutional measures hostile to same-sex couples being invalidated by the courts.

 

[Flopper]

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.

It makes no sense today. It will do nothing to reduce the number of gay marriages nor abortions. If abortion and same sex marriage were legal in New York state and not in New Jersey, take a short cab ride and it's legal. America is one country, not 50 separate kingdoms.

In order for a law to be enforceable, the law must be supported by the people otherwise the police don't enforce the law and you have a situation similar to Marijuana today or prohibition in 20's. According to 2014 Gallup polls only 29% of the people in the US oppose Rowe v Wade and only 43% oppose gay marriage Even in republican strongholds such as the South gay marriage support stands at 48% and Rowe v Wade 52%

 

[TemplarKormac]

people ARE free to move to states where they feel better about living, ya know.

They are also free to file laws suits for damages.

My question to them would be

"How have you been damaged? You look fine to me. The only things hurt here are the feelings!"

 

[RKMBrown]

people ARE free to move to states where they feel better about living, ya know.

They are also free to file laws suits for damages.

My question to them would be

"How have you been damaged? You look fine to me. The only things hurt here are the feelings!"

Taking away a persons rights, treating them like they are sub-human, is a gut punch, a punch to the brain. I'm pretty sure you understand exactly what you are doing to them. How's it feel to be so high and mighty so "christian" like?

 

[Flopper]

Big Government right wingers want lots and lots of invasive laws. They don't get that government does not belong in our private lives. Not in our bedrooms, not in control of our most personal and private issues.

Instead of asking why states should not be Peeping Toms, how about you ask why they should?

Yup, repubs are in our bedrooms and dems are in our wallets. What to do? What to do?

Take the Republican Party back from the social conservatives - who are just as much in your wallet as the Democrats.

Most social conservatives support free markets and small government but their stand on homosexuality and abortion sets them at odds not just with liberals but also fiscal conservatives.

 

[PratchettFan]

Big Government right wingers want lots and lots of invasive laws. They don't get that government does not belong in our private lives. Not in our bedrooms, not in control of our most personal and private issues.

Instead of asking why states should not be Peeping Toms, how about you ask why they should?

Yup, repubs are in our bedrooms and dems are in our wallets. What to do? What to do?

Take the Republican Party back from the social conservatives - who are just as much in your wallet as the Democrats.

Most social conservatives support free markets and small government but their stand on homosexuality and abortion sets them at odds not just with liberals but also fiscal conservatives.

I disagree. Most social conservatives have no idea what a free market is and they are sure not for small government. It far more than just homosexuality and abortion. Social conservatives want the imposition of some mythical 1950's sitcom and if you are willing to promise them that, they will go along with just about any other program you like.