Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick
I agree that local governments are even closer to their voters, but our country was based on an agreement among the States. States can push that stuff down as much as they want, the whole point is that there is no one size fits all. Oklahoma is probably uniform enough that things can be managed at the state level, whereas in NY or CA or other diverse states, it might be better to push some of that down (except for the fact that NY and CA are the kind of states that want to control everyone and everything anyway, so maybe a state like say, Florida would be a better example).
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob
Great point. The short answer is because that’s the way our nation was set up - 13 distinct and separate colonies, jealous of each other, were combined into one country (not very well under the Articles of Confederation, but Not Bad under the Constitution). And the colonies were all governed, more or less, from a central location by either a royal governor and/or some collective body. And here we are.
I think the theory is that cities, towns, and counties are created under the state’s authority. They can be dissolved by the state (subject to a state’s own constitution).
|
Yes. I understand that. What I do not understand is why Republicans/conservatives/whatever aren't constantly having this fight at the state level, even within their own Republican-controlled states. If the goal is to leave control of one's laws to the principles of each community in order to capture what is best for each individual community, one would think this would be a constant struggle against what someone outside of your community is forcing upon you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob
This is ok in theory because each part of New York sends representatives to Albany to make decisions. So all parts of the state can collectively decide in a post-Roe* world whether one can get an abortion in the Villiage or Buffalo. (One can see this sort of thing in action on something like the MTA - deBlasio gets the blame for crowded subways but it’s NYS government that ultimately decides how much funding to give for maintenance and modernization).
|
Are you saying that if we left it up to the states to determine whether or not one could have an abortion that it's possible that because there are state representatives who are sent to the state legislature, they could come up with a solution that would permit certain areas of the state to allow abortions and other areas not? Because that's ridiculous. Each state would set the rule based on where legislators collectively (and the court system) came out on the law/individual rights, etc. And that's how it works right now at the federal level.
I realize the struggle is against federalism. But it seems like you're either with representative government or not. It seems stupid to talk about how awful it is at one level (federal) and then swear by it at another (state).
TM
