How come states cant fully embrace statehood

[Pharaohs Army]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

Like if alabama or some shit wants to hate gay people and be religious zealots why not allow it

Gay people are citizens
The Constitution upon which we base our country basically has a bill of rights and Equal protection under the law.
So a law that treats a certain group or groups of people differently is anti-american.

Like, from '65 and all the way into the 2000's
The Voting Rights Act particularly focused its attention on the Southern States
Not because: "oh fk those southerners let's give them the raw deal and put he Fed Gov on their back, not let them decide"
it was more like
"Oh. since the 1800s they're not letting blacks vote or have rights (or creating major obstacles) unless we step in."

Part of the act was repealed by the Supreme Court, with the help of the kind&loving Scalia (r.i.p.)
And literally days afterwards, Texas and some other southern states passed laws that made it harder for everyone to vote (but disproportionately affected poorer ppl/ browner ppl).

I've been talking about Voting and Civil Rights laws.. Just trying to give you a concrete example.

For more encompassing information, you may want to do an internet search of "Federalist Papers" and/or Anti-Federalist Papers.

The issue you are bringing up was the big controversial issue with the founders in creating the new government. And still is an issue..

Altho the "country" began 1776, the Constitutional Convention didn't occur until i think 1787.
Before that there were the Articles of Confederation which was much "looser" central control with more state sovereignty.
Wasn't working out too well.
I wanna be careful though... to cite that^ as an argument against more states' rights is kind of specious, as the Articles had deeper problemz, and was shoddy in general.

And yes Witty, there was a civil war.
To most of "the powerbrokers" it was more about states' rights & economics than the morality of enslaving black people. Was about holding together the Union.

Uh-oh,
As far as where you're generally trying to go:
Fed takes care of defense and whatever else is actually outlined for them in the Constitution, with every single other thing being handled by the states...
That's basically a strict constitutionalists view... which in theory I very much can sympathize with.
But the real world is not theory-- because as I have alluded to, you are then getting into ares of State law&the majority encroaching on minority rights. (any kind of minority, not just skin color. &any kind of rights or laws, not just voting). which also goes back to constitutional issues.

Has the central government gotten carried away, and has a hand in far too much? Absolutely, in my opinion.
Where in the Constitution does it talk about Social Security? Or Housing Assistance?
But then again we have the real world
In the 1930's the country was in a horrible economic state. So it was like Social Security so old people don't starve&freeze?? Or, should we not? -cuz it's not a Federal power?

Another thing to realize is States have to balance the budgets annually.
It's harder for them to do shit.
So the Fed has to "help out" with schooling & health care and all that nonsense.
There is a school of thought "to say the hell with that, not the Federal gov'ts job...But that would be quite a social experiment now wouldn't it?
Not to pick on the Gulf but since you brought that up-- Alabama and Miss. &states like that ALREADY have the worst education and healthcare by most measures... Now imagine leaving that completely up to those states with no federal.
Methinks they'd spend money enacting a polish your gun day and teaching bible study in public schools.

The Federalist Papers (and the many "responses" to them)are probably a boring/dry read with a lot of nuance. But honestly if you wanna learn bout dis issue it's probably a good resource.