6 ms·

> This approach creates a more unified country because people are able to make their own decisions and live with them. I don't know why you would assume that:

> This approach creates a more unified country because people are able to make their own decisions and live with them. I don't know why you would assume that: There's a whole host of tensions that come with decisions made at the state level. Reciprocity is a huge one that comes up semi-frequently (for example with firearm laws). > People are able to move within the country to states with policies more in line with their own views. "Just move" is an ok answer if your beef is, say, with Oregon's gas pumping laws. It's a really awful answer if your problem is that your state allows "separate but equal" bathrooms for black people. Those suffering at the hands of those extreme policies are also the least likely to have the means to move. > States have to have balanced budgets I don't know why you think that. State budget crises aren't unknown or even all that uncommon. > There's a push in this country lately to do everything at a Federal level though Because for most of the history of the United States, human rights issues have only been resolved at the federal level. Slavery, segregation, women's suffrage, and same-sex marriage have all been framed as "States Rights" issues.

brightball 11y ago
> This approach creates a more unified country because people are able to make their own decisions and live with them. >>I don't know why you would assume that: There's a whole host of tensions that come with decisions made at the state level. Reciprocity is a huge one that comes up semi-frequently (for example with firearm laws). There are and those get to be negotiated and worked out. The tensions arise, such as with firearms laws, because states don't see eye to eye on those issues so they get to dictate exactly how things work in their own states. That is entirely the point. Firearm laws are a great example because just because I might wish your state did things differently...it's not my state and therefore I don't really get a vote. > People are able to move within the country to states with policies more in line with their own views. >>"Just move" is an ok answer if your beef is, say, with Oregon's gas pumping laws. "Just move" becomes a much more difficult proposition when your beef is with the entire country. I have neighbors who moved their kids out of Colorado as soon as marijuana was legalized. That was a choice they were able to make with a policy they disagreed with. >>It's a really awful answer if your problem is that your state allows "separate but equal" bathrooms for black people. Those suffering at the hands of those extreme policies are also the least likely to have the means to move. The extreme example counter response is never far behind in political discourse. Civil rights / human rights issues are a different ballgame and those absolutely are things that need to be resolved at the federal level. There's a whole host of other policies that don't though. > States have to have balanced budgets >>I don't know why you think that. State budget crises aren't unknown or even all that uncommon. They are crises because they have to be balanced. That is the point. If your state's budget doesn't work there are furloughs, layoffs and immediate budget cuts to balance it. At the Federal level that doesn't happen unless Congress fails to pass ANY budget regardless of whether it's balanced. > There's a push in this country lately to do everything at a Federal level though >>Because for most of the history of the United States, human rights issues have only been resolved at the federal level. Slavery, segregation, women's suffrage, and same-sex marriage have all been framed as "States Rights" issues. Again, above answer applies. Those ARE the issues that are Federal issues. There's a wide gap between those issues and virtually every other policy in the country being effected by a broad reading of the interstate commerce clause.
- FlannelPancake 11y ago
  > The tensions arise, such as with firearms laws, because states don't see eye to eye on those issues so they get to dictate exactly how things work in their own states That causes some AWFUL problems for people traveling between states, which is incredibly common nowadays because of air travel. Google for the myriad of really terrible stories involving people accidentally traveling to New Jersey with a firearm. In at least a few cases they were forced to travel to New Jersey because of an airline mistake (unexpected layovers, misplaced luggage, etc.). Reciprocity is a much bigger issue than you're making it out to be. > The extreme example counter response is never far behind in political discourse. "States Rights" almost always comes up as an argument in the context of human rights violations. I don't think it's too extreme to remind people of that. > There's a whole host of other policies that don't though. Where's that line get drawn? If I frame marijuana as a human rights issue (see: the racial discrepancies in conviction rates for drug offenses), does it become ok for the federal government to resolve then? > They are crises because they have to be balanced. Errr no? There are plenty of states that are "balanced" only because the federal government gives them copious amounts of money, well in excess of their GSP. They're "balanced" but to call it anything other than artificially balanced is silly. > There's a wide gap between those issues and virtually every other policy in the country being effected by a broad reading of the interstate commerce clause. Those are the primary issues anti-federalists bring up when States' rights comes up as a discussion, both historically and currently (not slavery obviously, but same-sex marriage is an incredibly recent one). If you're talking about things like the drinking age (which isn't even really a mandate, just an extreme carrot on a stick), then sure, whatever - but who cares? Those are trivial issues in comparison.
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    > Google for the myriad of really terrible stories involving people accidentally traveling to New Jersey with a firearm. In at least a few cases they were forced to travel to New Jersey because of an airline mistake (unexpected layovers, misplaced luggage, etc.). Reciprocity is a much bigger issue than you're making it out to be. That's not about reciprocity so much as it is about NJSP thumbing their noses at FOPA (federal law since 1986) I think

brightball 11y ago

> This approach creates a more unified country because people are able to make their own decisions and live with them. >>I don't know why you would assume that: There's a whole host of tensions that come with decisions made at the state level. Reciprocity is a huge one that comes up semi-frequently (for example with firearm laws). There are and those get to be negotiated and worked out. The tensions arise, such as with firearms laws, because states don't see eye to eye on those issues so they get to dictate exactly how things work in their own states. That is entirely the point. Firearm laws are a great example because just because I might wish your state did things differently...it's not my state and therefore I don't really get a vote. > People are able to move within the country to states with policies more in line with their own views. >>"Just move" is an ok answer if your beef is, say, with Oregon's gas pumping laws. "Just move" becomes a much more difficult proposition when your beef is with the entire country. I have neighbors who moved their kids out of Colorado as soon as marijuana was legalized. That was a choice they were able to make with a policy they disagreed with. >>It's a really awful answer if your problem is that your state allows "separate but equal" bathrooms for black people. Those suffering at the hands of those extreme policies are also the least likely to have the means to move. The extreme example counter response is never far behind in political discourse. Civil rights / human rights issues are a different ballgame and those absolutely are things that need to be resolved at the federal level. There's a whole host of other policies that don't though. > States have to have balanced budgets >>I don't know why you think that. State budget crises aren't unknown or even all that uncommon. They are crises because they have to be balanced. That is the point. If your state's budget doesn't work there are furloughs, layoffs and immediate budget cuts to balance it. At the Federal level that doesn't happen unless Congress fails to pass ANY budget regardless of whether it's balanced. > There's a push in this country lately to do everything at a Federal level though >>Because for most of the history of the United States, human rights issues have only been resolved at the federal level. Slavery, segregation, women's suffrage, and same-sex marriage have all been framed as "States Rights" issues. Again, above answer applies. Those ARE the issues that are Federal issues. There's a wide gap between those issues and virtually every other policy in the country being effected by a broad reading of the interstate commerce clause.

FlannelPancake 11y ago
> The tensions arise, such as with firearms laws, because states don't see eye to eye on those issues so they get to dictate exactly how things work in their own states That causes some AWFUL problems for people traveling between states, which is incredibly common nowadays because of air travel. Google for the myriad of really terrible stories involving people accidentally traveling to New Jersey with a firearm. In at least a few cases they were forced to travel to New Jersey because of an airline mistake (unexpected layovers, misplaced luggage, etc.). Reciprocity is a much bigger issue than you're making it out to be. > The extreme example counter response is never far behind in political discourse. "States Rights" almost always comes up as an argument in the context of human rights violations. I don't think it's too extreme to remind people of that. > There's a whole host of other policies that don't though. Where's that line get drawn? If I frame marijuana as a human rights issue (see: the racial discrepancies in conviction rates for drug offenses), does it become ok for the federal government to resolve then? > They are crises because they have to be balanced. Errr no? There are plenty of states that are "balanced" only because the federal government gives them copious amounts of money, well in excess of their GSP. They're "balanced" but to call it anything other than artificially balanced is silly. > There's a wide gap between those issues and virtually every other policy in the country being effected by a broad reading of the interstate commerce clause. Those are the primary issues anti-federalists bring up when States' rights comes up as a discussion, both historically and currently (not slavery obviously, but same-sex marriage is an incredibly recent one). If you're talking about things like the drinking age (which isn't even really a mandate, just an extreme carrot on a stick), then sure, whatever - but who cares? Those are trivial issues in comparison.
- joshuapants 11y ago
  > Google for the myriad of really terrible stories involving people accidentally traveling to New Jersey with a firearm. In at least a few cases they were forced to travel to New Jersey because of an airline mistake (unexpected layovers, misplaced luggage, etc.). Reciprocity is a much bigger issue than you're making it out to be. That's not about reciprocity so much as it is about NJSP thumbing their noses at FOPA (federal law since 1986) I think