The role of the state in 21st century America

[werepossum]

Some progressive posted something that got me to thinking. He/she basically said that states were only needed because existing communications prevented the federal government from effectively exercising its will on all Americans. It's apparent that the left in general sees no role for states in health care. So I'm curious as to how others, particularly self-identified liberals and/or progressives, see the proper role of the fifty states in twenty-first century America. Is the Tenth Amendment no more than flotsam upon the sad wreckage of our once-proud Constitution?

Should the states be abolished and replaced with federal administration and enforcement offices?

Should states be in control of any particular area, perhaps education?

Or charged only with raising funds to operate federally mandated programs such as Medicare?

Should they be in charge of business within their borders?

Relegated to social issues? Barred from social issues?

Are states anachronistic entities better put to sleep, or vital sources of leadership and self-governance?

 

[TruePaige]

The Federal government should handle crucial services that every citizen should be able to access without regard to their state (Interstate highway system, health care, telecommunications, national defense, etc..)

States should handle issues as a larger community (librarys, parks, general roads, water, power, drinking age, smoking age, drug law, etc..) but with stipulations that rights based legislation can only be more lenient than the federal government, not harsher to prevent mini-hellhole states from popping up.

In summary: The largest of issues should be federal, the rest should be state run to provide the most choices for Americans.

This is just some quick shoot outs to your topic, it's a bit unrealistic so I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Some things that state governments could handle more efficiently when our country was founded can now be handle more efficiently by the feds due to technology improvements. In a lot of ways state governments are becoming obsolete and just add more overhead and further unnecessary tax burden. I would not mind seeing some of the power and responsibility of state governments shift to the federal level. Given how much money most state governments get from the feds now it's not like they aren't already on the payroll. And given how rampant mismanagement of a lot of that and other state money is, and how poor media coverage is of state government vs. the feds, I think it would likely be an overall improvement to the current state of things. I don't like a lot of government, the feds aren't going anywhere, let's work on downsizing the state. Having health care regulated on a national level to me seems to be a step in the right direction, though I haven't given much thought to other areas. I'm sure with 50 states all doing pretty much the same thing there are a lot of redundancies that could be removed. Gun rights are something I would NOT like the state governments to lose control over as there is a large variance in attitude on the subject by locality. Education needs to be administered by state governments, but I'd like to see stronger influence from the feds on content and quality.

And this is just me rambling on about a thought experiment about an idea I only recently started entertaining and haven't formed a hard opinion on yet so don't go labeling me an anticonstitutional fascist.

 

[Jaskalas]

Should the states be abolished and replaced with federal administration and enforcement offices?

This is a trick question.

They are already abolished lest you show me one state that's willing to step out of line and forsake all federal money.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I've thought about this a little more and there is an argument to be made that consolidating power from the states to the fed would also give folks a louder voice in government. Say there is a group of 20 citizens in each state trying to enact a certain change. Not a very large group and not likely to get much notice by their respective state governments. But one group of 1,000 all working together would have a much larger voice, and concentrating that voice at one point would increase the likelihood of being listened to.

I think the time is quickly approaching where state roles in government really will need to be formally readdressed. And I think it's a possibility that those who always unquestioningly side in favor state rights might be, with the current state of things, working against the very goals that state rights were initially instituted to achieve.

 

[Linflas]

This is a trick question.

They are already abolished lest you show me one state that's willing to step out of line and forsake all federal money.

6 states to go and that can be fixed at a Constitutional Convention.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think certain things the states do now would be better off run by the fed. Criminal punishment should be the same throughout the country. As it is now some states are more lenient on certain crimes then others. That is bogus to me. I think education woulc be better if run by the fed. That way ALL states are meeting certain teaching criterias with everyone is able to get the same quality education throughout the country. We are one country after all, we should act more like it. Most people are usually for cutting out the middleman. Well in this case the states are the middlemen bringing down the efficiency of certain things. Just my random 2 cents on the topic.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I don't see the role changing much at all.

And the overall premise is easily questioned. There are significant differences between states in function, law, tax structure, overall planning, home rule and delivery of services.




--

 

[lupi]

State's rights have nothing to do with ability to communicate over distance. The government in the US is supposed to be about exercising the power of the people as representatives of the people. The more that gets conglomerated at the federal level the more this ability becomes restricted and this portion of built in government control is ruined.

 

[Amused]

That line of thinking is just more myopic elitism.

One can clearly see cultural differences between the states still exist. States rights gives regional people a choice in how they want to live, and more localized government.

No amount of technology is going to overcome that.

 

[Patranus]

The federal government has essentially turned into a monopoly over the states.

And the "progressives" keep touting this idea of "choice and competition" yet they are the ones who are eliminating "choice and competition" in the United States.

 

[Infohawk]

I think we need fewer, re-drawn states. For example, New England should be one state. I think the main thing states offer is a testing ground. One state can try one approach and another state can try another approach and we can compare the results and adopt the best option.

 

[Elias824]

I think the main thing states offer is a testing ground. One state can try one approach and another state can try another approach and we can compare the results and adopt the best option.

cali is legalizing pot, mass and Hawaii have allready tried HC reform, everyone has different approaches to mass transit. Probably the best reason to keep states around. What about county and city governments too? More local government gives people a better chance to interact and decide how things are run in their area.

 

[her209]

States should remain states. Imagine paying sales tax that then gets used elsewhere in the country (not that it isn't happening with Federal taxes already).

 

[jstern01]

6 states to go and that can be fixed at a Constitutional Convention.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not a chance in hell of that happening

 

[jstern01]

States should remain states. Imagine paying sales tax that then gets used elsewhere in the country (not that it isn't happening with Federal taxes already).

Actually that might be a better idea. A federal consumption tax, yeah where has that happened..... Oh, snap in the EU!

 

[MotF Bane]

I think we need fewer, re-drawn states. For example, New England should be one state. I think the main thing states offer is a testing ground. One state can try one approach and another state can try another approach and we can compare the results and adopt the best option.

No thanks. For starters, can you imagine getting MA and NH to get along in terms of policy?

 

[MotF Bane]

The role of the state? Bending over and taking it from the federal government.