Why do the states of the US have so much power?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Why do the states of the US have so much power?

Many good answers about the 'why'.

I'd just also add that the states were meant to serve as little 'experiments' in public policy. So, a state has the leeway to adopt a policy and the rest of us can see how it works out. If beneficial, then the rest of us are free to adopt it etc.

This goes on quite a bit even today. Health care is an example of where you see a lot different state 'experiments'.

Fern
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Any voluntary marriage falls under the right to the pursuit of happiness, though obviously some insist on supporting legalisation to the contrary.

hmmmm....interesting, never thought of it in that context.

"Marriage", as a legal concept...

Marrige is older than our legal systems.

Originally posted by: Fern
... brings with it some privileges and responsibilites

What responsibilities in the legal concept of marriage are you eluding to? What responsibilities should any of us have to each other besides not infringing on the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of others? Are we slaves here?

Originally posted by: Fern
...I don't think it is a "right" per se. (Is alimony a Constitutional right? I don't think so)

Do you not think the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right as acknowledged by our Declaration of Independence?

Originally posted by: Fern
You can love who you wish, you can live with whom you wish. That exists now and that is, IMO, your "right to pursuit of happiness" etc. You don't need legal 'marriage' for that.

Sure, but as long as we do have legal recognition of marriage, to deny such recognition of a voluntary marriage is an infringement on the pursuit of happiness.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,133
219
106
Doesn't really matter what the state says, the federal laws hold up for the state laws. Just because the state says it's "OK" to do something and the feds disagree well, then you get tried in a federal court house instead of a state one.

Also, the feds have a big influence on how states get their money. Like have you ever noticed how EVERY state requires you to wear your seat belt? How did that come about? I could name a 100 more but you get the picture.

 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
but that inability to live independent of the mother, the ability to survive outside of the womb, is what differentiates a fetus from the human being it becomes.

The statement is based on the right to life, are you saying that a fetus is not alive? Or are you saying they do not qualify for that protection because they can not live on their own?

Tell me Ben, how old are you?

Old is defined by age, age is defined by date of birth. Answering that question is not one of hypocrisy, it is one of understanding the English language. My apologies for not being ignorant.

Killing a viable fetus on the technicality that hasn't been delivered yet is insane

Then when do you decide it is viable?

However, I would never deny a woman her liberty to choose otherwise

With the exception of rape, how was the woman not at liberty to decide in advance? Honestly I have never seen anyone so much as hint that women should be required to procreate in any way whatsoever.

and I find it completely abhorrent that others insist on doing so

I haven't said anything to the contrary of that, what I have been pointing out is that in the precise sentence you claim that alternative marriage choices are protected, another right is explicitly spelled out which you do not seem to agree with. I have no issue with people having differing perspectives, I do with hypocrisy however. It is interesting to see your rationalization for how it is not.

Like have you ever noticed how EVERY state requires you to wear your seat belt?

That would be a good point, if it were true. It isn't. I know this to be true as I live in a state that doesn't have mandatory seat belt laws for all of its' citizens.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
The states have power because that is precisely what the framers wanted. The US was never intended to be a large federally centered entity. It took decades before the federal government even allowed itself to tax. It is also why the Bill of Rights limited the federal government to a limited set of permissions - passing all other unwritten rights to be managed by the states. Which is why the tenth amendment reads as follows (remember originally there were only ten).


Tenth Amendment ? Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


The US is a union of states which each are technically soveriegn over their own territory. At some point (prior to the civil war) the ferdeal government began to ursurp state powers. The Civil War was the ultimate tipping point, the time when the federal government finally took the majority of control over laws and taxation.

Frankly, most of the most respected framers would be rolling in their graves. Read the Federalist Papers if you want to further understand this argument, for and against strong central government. The states rights group saw a central power as a threat to the individule freedoms that could be much easier managed at the state level. Furthermore, a localized tax authority and welfare authority give more voter freedom with less risk of corruption.

The state we are currently in clearly demonstrates the risk of a powerful central authority. The end run of a federal state is the loss of personal freedom and something more akin to a Socialist state.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
Simple answer to the OP is, some like Reagan wanted to destroy the middle class, and unions,
by creating a myth that "big gov BAD... small gov GOOD".
Thus claiming the government (which is "we the people" btw), claiming
the gov can not do anything right.
Then transfer as much of the burden on a state level to the states.
It worked!

Checked your state tax bill lately?

It was a plot that worked. Still working.

 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
The government is not we the people represented by a federal authority. It is we the people represented by individule authority.

I will say it again, to understand the argument, read the Federalist Papers - they outline this very discussion as it happened at the time of this nations founding.


That is why there was a 10th article to the Bill of Rights. If the US was designed to be a strong federal government, the BoR would have excluded this amendment and passed all remaining and unmentioned personal freedoms to a strong central authority. Precisely what we were fighting against at the time - as we are now.