Geographical Continuity of Law

[GWestphal]

This seems strange to me. I know many people say,give power back to the states, but can't you just whittle the number of laws down to a point where just a handful exist and apply everywhere? I don't quite get why each state gets it's own criminal laws. Murder in Texas is the same as murder in New York, right?

Then there are economic things. Prohibiting the sale of certain things like guns, alcohol, pornography etc in certain states vs others. That seems pretty shady. I think if a guy wants to sell alcohol in Salt Lake City or sell handguns in Illinois then go nuts. Sure those markets might be terrible for it, but that's the sellers decision, right?

Can anyone provide an example of a law that should be left to a state versus a nation wide applicable law? I feel like if it doesn't apply equally to everyone in the country then it probably shouldn't be a law at all.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Can anyone provide an example of a law that should be left to a state versus a nation wide applicable law? I feel like if it doesn't apply equally to everyone in the country then it probably shouldn't be a law at all.

Don't need a specific example. The Constitution set us up this way, with the states having the ability to have their own laws, because the FF wanted the states to act as little "Laboratories of democracy" so we could all experiment and learn from each other.

I think making laws at the local level makes the best sense. E.g., does it makes sense to carry a rifle around with you in Alaska where dangerous bears actually come into town and have attacked/killed people walking the sidewalks? Of course. But how about in NYC? Of course not.

Different laws in different places makes sense. Accordingly, having them all made in Washington DC by that group of azzhats would be terrible.

Then there's the whole federal police thing. We wouldn't need state/local law enforcement if the laws were federal. We'd have federal law enforcement. I don't like the sound of that.

Fern

 

[GWestphal]

I guess I should say serious laws should be the same everywhere. Then you don't have to worry about jurisdiction and crap like that. You kill someone in ND and flee to MT the ND police can keep up the chase and nab you. I can see reasons for not letting people run around with rifles in a densely populated regions. Hmmm...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I guess I should say serious laws should be the same everywhere. Then you don't have to worry about jurisdiction and crap like that. You kill someone in ND and flee to MT the ND police can keep up the chase and nab you. I can see reasons for not letting people run around with rifles in a densely populated regions. Hmmm...

Then you would have to change the Constitution because the Federal government hasn't the authority to make states conform it's laws at their whim.

 

[GWestphal]

Especially for laws that are duplicate everywhere, it seems inefficient to not have it codified at one place.

 

[Rastus]

There are many laws that are appropriate for one state and not for another. Water use laws in the desert vs. the rainforest for example.

Highly populated areas have many more laws that aren't practical for less dense areas. Not to mention the tax revenue that has to be raised to enforce them. I do not want to pay for a gang problem in a big city when I live in the country three states away. They need to hande those kind of problems themselves.

Gay marriage proponents a few years ago were argueing that if a federal court allows it in one state, then it is legal in all states because laws are supposed to be uniform.

Also, times change. The way Texas is handling the death penalty is the way most states handled it in the past. It's New York that has deviated from the norm, not Texas.

I think general uniformity of laws is a goal we should strive for, but we will never reach.

 

[monovillage]

Don't need a specific example. The Constitution set us up this way, with the states having the ability to have their own laws, because the FF wanted the states to act as little "Laboratories of democracy" so we could all experiment and learn from each other.

I think making laws at the local level makes the best sense. E.g., does it makes sense to carry a rifle around with you in Alaska where dangerous bears actually come into town and have attacked/killed people walking the sidewalks? Of course. But how about in NYC? Of course not.

Different laws in different places makes sense. Accordingly, having them all made in Washington DC by that group of azzhats would be terrible.

Then there's the whole federal police thing. We wouldn't need state/local law enforcement if the laws were federal. We'd have federal law enforcement. I don't like the sound of that.

Fern

More people are killed by 2 legged varmints then 4 legged varmints in every state in the union, even Alaska. I do agree with you on the States thing, it was just a shaky example.

 

[Pia]

The closer to you the law is written, the easier it is for your political action to make a real difference in what in says. In a large enough system neither your vote nor your voice matter at all.

Plus, when local laws get enacted which you find unacceptable, you at least have the option of voting with your feet and you don't have to go that far. If all laws were nationwide, avoiding a bad one by leaving would be beyond the means of most people.

 

[GWestphal]

Right, so you make the important things (murder, theft, etc) federal level since they are felonies in every state, why have 50x redundant codification. You could still have state taxation to fund interstate highways, municipal taxation and ordinances. I just can't think of an example of a law that would be unique to a state that should really be a law? Maybe I'm just being a space cadet at the moment.

 

[Anarchist420]

Then why not have a World Republic? That would be the ultimate geographical continuity of law.

The law is too uniform as it is now anyway and I can think of very few things that actually are confederalized. Hamilton won out over the Antifederalists at the convention even if he didn't realize it.

 

[cybrsage]

Don't need a specific example. The Constitution set us up this way, with the states having the ability to have their own laws, because the FF wanted the states to act as little "Laboratories of democracy" so we could all experiment and learn from each other.

I think making laws at the local level makes the best sense. E.g., does it makes sense to carry a rifle around with you in Alaska where dangerous bears actually come into town and have attacked/killed people walking the sidewalks? Of course. But how about in NYC? Of course not.

Different laws in different places makes sense. Accordingly, having them all made in Washington DC by that group of azzhats would be terrible.

Then there's the whole federal police thing. We wouldn't need state/local law enforcement if the laws were federal. We'd have federal law enforcement. I don't like the sound of that.

Fern

This is the same reason I am against a FedGov run healthcare system but am for a States run healthcare system.