We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is the part that I don't get. Why is it states that have the best ways to discover a better way? The implication is that one size does not fit all. New York surely knows what's better for it's communities than a group sitting in DC. But why does a group sitting in Albany know what's better for the West Village or the Finger Lakes, for that matter? It seems like a totally arbitrary cutoff.

TM

Remember, the first battle over State's Rights came because Madison and the damnable Southerners had effectively cut off trade between the Northern States and the rest of the world to suit their own ends. Sound familiar?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I agree that local governments are even closer to their voters

I often wonder whether people who say things like this have ever interacted with state or local governments.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I hate Illinois Conservatives!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is the part that I don't get. Why is it states that have the best ways to discover a better way? The implication is that one size does not fit all. New York surely knows what's better for it's communities than a group sitting in DC. But why does a group sitting in Albany know what's better for the West Village or the Finger Lakes, for that matter? It seems like a totally arbitrary cutoff.

TM

I'd like to argue on SEC's behalf. SEC is consistent in her 10th Amendment Jurisprudence. For example, she thinks the Hyde Amendment should be repealed. Likewise, she thinks restricting state laws that might, for example, require that a place that bakes cakes for weddings not discriminate against some of its customers, or limit the sale of sex toys or prophylactics, or criminalize specific forms of sex, or sex with classes of persons, should be respected. She applies the state's rights logic evenly and consistently.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

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).

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.

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

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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.

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

On your point about the inconsistency about how they feel about state versus federal government, I agree.

It may not make much sense to have different rules for different parts of a state, but it happens. For example, in FL orida parimutuel gambling is only allowed in certain locations. Why is it ok for a person in Tampa to gamble on local greyhound racing, but some shmoe in Jacksonville can’t? The law is an ass sometimes.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'd like to argue on SEC's behalf. SEC is consistent in her 10th Amendment Jurisprudence. For example, she thinks the Hyde Amendment should be repealed. Likewise, she thinks restricting state laws that might, for example, require that a place that bakes cakes for weddings not discriminate against some of its customers, or limit the sale of sex toys or prophylactics, or criminalize specific forms of sex, or sex with classes of persons, should be respected. She applies the state's rights logic evenly and consistently.

I guess I don't know what your point is, exactly:

Hyde Amendment: If, consistent with the 10th Amendment, we take the federal government out of Medicare, Medicaid, and all healthcare spending entirely, then yeah, I am totally ok with no Hyde Amendment. State governments can do as they wish in that regard.

State accomodations statutes: I am also fine with different states having different protected groups and having whatever rules they wish. However, they may not enforce them in a way inconsistent with the constitution (See the record from the CO civil rights commission in Masterpiece (from David French at NR https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...berty-victory/ )

The other stuff: States can't do things or make laws that have been found to be unconstitutional, so again, I don't get your point.

ETA: If your point is that you thought I would believe states should re-implement sodomy laws, sorry to disappoint. Have I not made it clear that my federalism has libertarian leanings?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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.

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

Texas struggles with this quite a bit, because the cities are really progressive whereas the state as a whole* is, er, not. So the state has pushed back on efforts, for example, to ban fracking in Denton, ban plastic bags in Austin, and regulate Uber and Lyft in Austin and Lyft in Houston. And then there's the stupid ass bathroom bill which will come back up again next session. The cities and the state are particularly at odds regarding sanctuary city status right now.

Texas Republicans/conservatives/whatever PC term they're calling themselves now have no problem whatsoever with the inconsistency.

*The part that bothers to show up to vote. I read something today that said that the state's largest population will be Hispanic in 5 years, overtaking the non-Hispanic white population as the largest ethic group in the state. We haven't had a majority population in quite some time. I'm not saying that all Hispanics that vote vote Democrat, but it's about 66/33. It's just no one votes in this state. In part by design.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

(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).

This isn't a good argument when the issue (abortion) has NY and CA in favor of less control over a person's body, and the red states seeking to exercise control.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Yes. I do think that Roe should be overturned and that the issue should be left to the states.

ETA: I don't think there's even a small chance of that happening unless both RBG and Breyer leave the court within the next year.

Well, we are in somewhat agreement. I think that the issue of being part of the United States should be left to the states.

Build the fucking wall between NJ and NY and I would help brick by brick. And unless you have a NY driver's license, turn around.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Well, we are in somewhat agreement. I think that the issue of being part of the United States should be left to the states.

Build the fucking wall between NJ and NY and I would help brick by brick. And unless you have a NY driver's license, turn around.

don't you live in NJ?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

don't you live in NJ?

I would live in Islamabad before I lived in Jersey.

[Adder]

I heard there are some lovely properties in Perth Amboy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I would live in Islamabad before I lived in Jersey.

Icky lives on Lon Gisland?

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

This isn't a good argument when the issue (abortion) has NY and CA in favor of less control over a person's body, and the red states seeking to exercise control.

I suppose that conclusion depends on which person's body you are considering.