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

[Locut0s]

I don't know a lot about american politics and government, being Canadian, but I do know the basics. One question I've always had, why do the states retain so much power in the american system of governance? From a foreign perspective the US seems more like a loose collection of countries than a unified whole. Major areas of law, politics, health, and other governmental affairs fall under the state's jurisdiction whereas they would be federal in almost any other country. I know some of the historical reasons for this but not why it has lasted so long or why Americans cling so tightly to this concept?

I'm not trying to argue for or against this, I think it has it's benefits and detractions. Just curious why Americans identify so strongly with this style of government?

 

[Farang]

Short answer is it is a result of the bargaining that went on among the colonies when we decided to go for independence. Virginians didn't want to be bossed around by New Yorkers and vice versa, or to create the same kind of oppressive power that they were under with the British. Today it is much more of a federal-based system and I think you'll find a lot of Americans find it amusing you think the states hold a lot of power.

 

[fallout man]

Regardless of whatever perversion, delusion, or bigotry you carry with you, there is always a place you'll be able to call "home."

 

[sandorski]

I'm not really sure it is that different.

 

[PrinceofWands]

We're not a unified democracy, we're a democratic republic. We are actually FAR more unified and federally controlled than was EVER intended, even by the federalists in some areas. It was the entire basis of our founding, so we cling to it. It also resonates far more closely with ideas of individuality, something which Americans overwhelmingly support.

 

[ElFenix]

theoretically the smaller the population and area governed, the more responsive the government is to the people. also, if the state and federal levels are fighting over who can do what where, there is a good chance that people will be left alone.

though, since the states no longer have their own representatives in the federal government, federalism has largely become more of a thought than an actual practice. no way we'd have unfunded mandates that 'reduce' the federal budget, for example, if senators remained appointed by the states rather than directly elected.

 

[bamacre]

The more local representation is, the better.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
We are actually FAR more unified and federally controlled than was EVER intended, even by the federalists in some areas. It was the entire basis of our founding, so we cling to it. It also resonates far more closely with ideas of individuality, something which Americans overwhelmingly support.

My thoughts as well.

The result of the war between the states brought the states much closer together once it was proven in action that state membership in the US is compulsory.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
We're not a unified democracy, we're a democratic republic. We are actually FAR more unified and federally controlled than was EVER intended, even by the federalists in some areas. It was the entire basis of our founding, so we cling to it. It also resonates far more closely with ideas of individuality, something which Americans overwhelmingly support.

this. :thumbsup:

 

[spidey07]

We identify with it as already mentioned we fought for it, it's part of our Bill of Rights. It's as important as freedom of speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...ed_States_Constitution

 

[MovingTarget]

Some would say that states do not have ENOUGH power, that the 10th amendment has been trampled on to no end. We were designed to be a truly federal system with the federal and state governments fulfilling different roles, a division of responsibilities and authority if you will. Some issues/concerns are best handled on the federal level either because they require the cooperation of too many parties amongst many states or the states simply do not have the resources to do certain things by virtue of their size/population/wealth/etc. Besides, state governments are often more directly accountable to their people simply because of geographic concerns....

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
We're not a unified democracy, we're a democratic republic. We are actually FAR more unified and federally controlled than was EVER intended, even by the federalists in some areas. It was the entire basis of our founding, so we cling to it. It also resonates far more closely with ideas of individuality, something which Americans overwhelmingly support.

Americans overwhelmingly support individuality in theory, but in practice many insist on restricting individual rights in regards to abortion, drugs, gay marriage, weaponry, and a whole host of other issues, and little concern for how our foreign policy infringes on the rights of individuals in many other parts of the world. Put simply, we are becoming a hollow shell of the ideals we our great nation was founded upon, limited federal government with strong state's rights being yet another principle we have thrown to the wind long ago.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
We're not a unified democracy, we're a democratic republic. We are actually FAR more unified and federally controlled than was EVER intended, even by the federalists in some areas. It was the entire basis of our founding, so we cling to it. It also resonates far more closely with ideas of individuality, something which Americans overwhelmingly support.

Americans overwhelmingly support individuality in theory, but in practice many insist on restricting individual rights in regards to abortion, drugs, gay marriage, weaponry, and a whole host of other issues, and little concern for how our foreign policy infringes on the rights of individuals in many other parts of the world. Put simply, we are becoming a hollow shell of the ideals we our great nation was founded upon, limited federal government with strong state's rights being yet another principle we have thrown to the wind long ago.

I agree, I was just explaining why we cling to states rights ideals.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
We're not a unified democracy, we're a democratic republic. We are actually FAR more unified and federally controlled than was EVER intended, even by the federalists in some areas. It was the entire basis of our founding, so we cling to it. It also resonates far more closely with ideas of individuality, something which Americans overwhelmingly support.

Americans overwhelmingly support individuality in theory, but in practice many insist on restricting individual rights in regards to abortion, drugs, gay marriage, weaponry, and a whole host of other issues, and little concern for how our foreign policy infringes on the rights of individuals in many other parts of the world. Put simply, we are becoming a hollow shell of the ideals we our great nation was founded upon, limited federal government with strong state's rights being yet another principle we have thrown to the wind long ago.

The current precedent of the rights of citizens being greater than those of states, i.e. that states cannot infringe upon the rights of individuals isn't necessarily in contradiction to states' rights.

 

[kylebisme]

What current precedent are you referring to? States commonly trample on individual rights, and are backed by our Federal Government in doing so, such as with abortion and gay marriage.

Furthermore, I get the impression you didn't comprehend what I said. My point was that State rights have been stripped by our Federal Government in various ways, such as though distorted application of interstate commerce legislation to restrict drugs and weapons across our nation, regardless of what each State might like.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Locut0s
I'm not trying to argue for or against this, I think it has it's benefits and detractions. Just curious why Americans identify so strongly with this style of government?

There are also some other benefits from people who support such a system. For example, some basic theories are that it is easier for people to participate in a local state government as opposed to a federal government and states can individually experiment with certain ideas or laws instead of the entire country as a whole experiencing a change at once.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Locut0s
Title: Why do the states of the US have so much power?

Union, your education begins there.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
What current precedent are you referring to? States commonly trample on individual rights, and are backed by our Federal Government in doing so, such as with abortion and gay marriage.

Furthermore, I get the impression you didn't comprehend what I said. My point was that State rights have been stripped by our Federal Government in various ways, such as though distorted application of interstate commerce legislation to restrict drugs and weapons across our nation, regardless of what each State might like.

Ummm...federal protection on issues like free speech, civil rights, privacy, etc. are a major part of any course on constitutional law. Rights guaranteed to the people by the federal constitution cannot be superseded by state authority (either by state statute or even by the state constitution). The amount of precedent here is huge. What states can and can't do is heavily controlled by this fact.

I do get your point though. States rights have been stripped considerably since the civil war. However, the more modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause as you say is a big factor. By controlling pursestrings for things like federal highway or education funds, the federal government basically can force states to pass laws that they themselves have no authority to pass, as the states do. See the federal drinking age, which was opposed by a handful of states. They couldn't risk losing the $$, so they had to ultimately cave in. Another example is through "unfunded mandates" such as NCLB. Drugs and weapons are just other examples....

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Ummm...federal protection on issues like free speech, civil rights, privacy, etc. are a major part of any course on constitutional law. Rights guaranteed to the people by the federal constitution cannot be superseded by state authority (either by state statute or even by the state constitution). The amount of precedent here is huge. What states can and can't do is heavily controlled by this fact.

Not that I ever said anything to suggest otherwise.

I am glad you got my point though.

 

[Lemon law]

Yep gotta agree, prior to our civil war, States held most of the power and that was as our founding fathers envisioned it. More and more power now rests with the executive President, for different reasons.

So far our constitution has been a living document, often dented but still unbroken.

So many other governments modeled after our constitution have made the fatal mistakes we have not yet made.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I'm not really sure it is that different.

Really? In some states, what is perfectly legal, can cause you to be arrested/sentenced/raped or killed in others (Im using sex with a 16 year old for this example).


I have a friend that recieved 3 months in county for armed robbery here in CA, which would land you 7 years+ on a first offense in some Southern states.

Marijuana, gun laws, etc....we could go on and on as far as the laws are concerned.


@ OP: There is a good reason for this. What works in Maryland might not work in Oregon. Our states are very different from each other as far as environment, population, etc. Attempting to make one set of laws/regulations work across the country makes you look ignorant.

Giving power to local populations (via voting for representatives) makes them feel as if they are involved. If you applied NYC gun laws to Alaska, they would revolt.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
What current precedent are you referring to? States commonly trample on individual rights, and are backed by our Federal Government in doing so, such as with abortion and gay marriage.

Furthermore, I get the impression you didn't comprehend what I said. My point was that State rights have been stripped by our Federal Government in various ways, such as though distorted application of interstate commerce legislation to restrict drugs and weapons across our nation, regardless of what each State might like.

explain to me how gay marriage is a right. Hell, even heterosexual marriage is not a right. Both are privaleges and both can be legislated by the state/people.

 

[CPA]

I'm a little confused as to why a Canadian is confused with our form of government. Your own government set-up allows Quebec to do things differently than the rest of the provinces. It's really not much different in theory.

 

[Locut0s]

Originally posted by: CPA
I'm a little confused as to why a Canadian is confused with our form of government. Your own government set-up allows Quebec to do things differently than the rest of the provinces. It's really not much different in theory.

Umm yeah Quebec is the black sheep of the family that "we just don't talk about"

I'm thinking more about the criminal code, drug and gun laws, civil law etc.. Although some of this varies from province to province most of the big stuff here is federal.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CPA
explain to me how gay marriage is a right. Hell, even heterosexual marriage is not a right. Both are privaleges and both can be legislated by the state/people.

Any voluntary marriage falls under the right to the pursuit of happiness, though obviously some insist on supporting legalisation to the contrary.