How come states cant fully embrace statehood

[uh-oh]

Like individual countries, why do we need an overarching federal government to preside over and pressure the states into shit.

Like if alabama or some shit wants to hate gay people and be religious zealots why not allow it, and let some other state take in those in disagreement, and literally have the federal government only their like a EU situation, but to be honest im not even positive how that works.

Like basically just have a federal government that is the military and thats it. Just let each state individually handle all of there affairs?

[SHECK WES]

Because if Rick Scott became president of Florida we'd be fucked

[Destroyer]

I think this is how it's actually supposed to work.
but with everything else, power and money corrupts
once money entered in to politics, it's pretty much a downhill slide into the shit pile

[Sharp]

Because they were like that at the birth of the US and the economics were totally out of hand (states had their own currency), laws and jurisdictions were incredibly difficult to enforce and borders were debated/easily crossed which made individual state laws harder to enforce/easier to abuse

Works on paper but a good deal needed to be centralized to get the nation together when half of Europe was waiting for it to fail so they could swoop in and claim land

[Witty]

Yeah, I mean, it just wouldn't work and your nation would crumble...go for it tho.

[Witty]

Also, there would inevitably be a civil war.

[Witty]

And I say that because if you think states are going to be like 'yeah those guys are doing that, we strongly strongly disagree but we respect their right to do as they wish' you are out of your mind. States who agreed with each other would team up, there would be a war...and in the end, you would end up with the same nation you have now, after many deaths.

[Fart]

what destro said.

[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.

[Pharaohs Army]

The marijuana legalization of those 3 or 4 states is actually an interesting case study.
Technically Federal DEA could raid any marijuana shop any time they wanted even in those states.
The state law clashes with Federal law and Federal trumps.
It's only due to "prioritization of enforcement" that they kind of look the other way. Your favorite president Obama certainly has expanded the executive power by outlying priorities of enforcement agencies.
But history will probably look back on him favorably, as DOMA and state pot laws and things like that were technically bad/unjust laws. So there is a technical difference between changing a law vs. not enforcing1 vs. prioritizing the lists of what to enforce first.
Actually GWBushie gave a good exmple to Obama on how to expand executive power. And it's a troubling precedent.
Part of it though is Congress' fault for not doing a single thing basically. Like not even TALKING OR DEBATING on going to war. Let alone vote on it. It is very very explicit in the Constitution that's they're job. So what's a prez supposed to do in that case? They do 30 day hostility thingies and we end up with Vietnam lol. Congress won't talk about war because it's politically toxic and they want to get re-elected.
The House terms are 2 year terms and most of that time is a re-election campaign. lol
Then you've got the Courts and both parties try to blatantly stack them to make ideological rulings rather than interpret the text and the law.
To say nothing of special interest money and all sorts of influential money in the system as Destroyer alluded to.
Fed printing money and getting their hands in waaaaayy too much central banking& housing.

Basically it's a shitstorm Randy. And things are gonna get a lot worse before they get better.
But at least we can afford a nice meal and a good bonk from a wh0re. People in some other countries are worried about their next meal and if their house might get shelled or their child kidnapped for ransom.

[uh-oh]

Yea, we should dissolve the fed. If a state struggles it struggles. Everything should be handled at the state level and the union should only exist to defend itself. Drop fed taxes ridiculously so it literally only pays for the military, and raise state taxes to take over the social security and infrastructure

Privatize everything else and let states operate how their citizens please, if you are in disagreement the state can facilitate your move to a state that fits your ideals

But that would never happen

[Pharaohs Army]

Even strict state's rights folks must admit though, that the Federal Gov't is enumerated with more powers than simply national defense.
In particular interstate commerce laws, which no doubt have been used very loosely to cover alooottt of things. There is no doubt that the Fed govt is set up to do more than just defend. But certainly it was set up to do far less than what it does now.
Basically I'm arguing for some middle ground. It sounds as though you are saying a State could make the shittiest laws it wanted to and ppl can move if they don't like it.... Well, if those shitty laws are unconstitutional then that's a gamechanger.
Privatizing everything and/or letting the largest corporations run wild(er) is also a dangerous road to go down. But that would be another long post if I went into all that.

[uh-oh]

The people of the state would make the laws. Half the laws passed the last 20 years are unconstitutional. Gay marriage isnt in the constitution. Weed legalization isnt in the Constitution. Etc. If a state (the people of that state) want that then its their constitutional right to have it passed. The fed shouldnt enforce things and shouldnt operate with any morality.

Im just saying what i personally think it should be. Everything you think the fed should control can be controlled at the state level. The only reason i would keep the military at a fed level would be to deter secession, and civil conflicts, but if each state was allowed to operate fully how its citizens want it to there would be no reason to threaten seceding. Crazy conservatives would still fight for the rights of hippy liberals and vice versa because the fed oversees the entire military

But again this is all pointless i was just high and bored when i made this thread

[Pharaohs Army]

na it's not pointless. I'm glad you wondered out loud.
Have you ever mailed a letter out of state though?

[anime_boners]

posting in an uh oh politics thread

[Destroyer]

just out of curiosity uh-oh,
when a state enacts an immoral law, who enforces its repeal?

[Diode]

The majority of US states are in an obscene deficit and would collapse into anarchy within days of having to fund their own interests and pick up the tab on the disappearing federally subsidized programs.

Look at Illinois right now for an idea of how it starts, then quadruple the fiscal damage and discontinuation of social programs.

It'd be hilarious.