Statehood is the problem

[Pantagruel]

The idea that 50 states under the U.S.A. banner, each with their own legal structure, can ever function efficiently to fight common national problems has become obsolete. We need NATIONAL Electoral systems, ID's, gun laws, drug laws , medical standards, etc., etc.
Dr. Fauci bemoans the symptoms, not the underlying structural weakness.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/531787-fauci-states-differing-responses-a-major-weakness-in-fighting-coronavirus

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. hell, yes - each state is its own country. These days, the cities are their own country.

[Thomas Hurt]

7. not really...

[NRaleighLiberal]

8. because? not helpful.

[Polybius]

16. Not in NYC

Governor Cuomo keeps overriding everything Mayor deBlasio wants to do.

[Walleye]

2. What we need is a federal government that's willing to step up and do their job.

[dawg day]

3. Also statelines are generally arbitrary and can be crossed easily

Last edited Mon Dec 28, 2020, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

No passport, no permission needed. I can buy my furniture in the state to the east with lower sales tax, marijuana in the state to the north where it's legal, and alcohol to the south where they have only a minor liquor tax.
I can get married easily in one state and divorced easily in another.

Plus of course if I had guns, I could carry them into states where guns are limited. It's all pretty dumb.

[Klaralven]

4. Since the two parties are de facto branches of government, we need Federal laws defining them.

Their structure, powers, method of functioning, funding, etc. need to be reformed by US legislation.

[OhZone]

5. Now that's not how we do it down here, son -

** spits **

[marylandblue]

6. This has been an argument since the Articles of Confederation.

Proponents of federal power vs proponents of state power. The federalists have always won, but not without considerable struggle, even Civil War. The issues change, but the need for uniform standards only grows.

[Stuart G]

26. Articles of Confedeation??? The rules that ran the country before the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

....Some may not recall or know what Articles of Confederation were. Above is a very short explanation.

[marylandblue]

28. Okay thanks, and to add to why I went back that far.

They were in place from 1781 to 1789 and it had a very weak federal government. They quickly found it was too weak and so they drafted the present Constitution. At other critical points in history, the federal government was found to be too weak to meet a crisis, and so had to strengthen itself. This happened in the Civil War and the Depression. To a lesser extent, it happened in the Civil Rights Era. We may be at such a crossroads again.

[Squinch]

9. I live in New York. It's not perfect, but I really don't want Arkansas or Kentucky politicians

messing in our laws.

No thanks.

[NYC Liberal]

13. I agree. I like the fact that we can pass free tuition,

paid sick leave, anti-discrimination laws, and have effective policies to fight COVID without needing Mississippi’s approval.

Yes all of those things should be national, but in the meantime I’m happy for states with sane leadership to have the power to act now.

[roamer65]

10. No. We need northern Blue State secession.

Fuck the idea of AR, AL or KY having ANY say in our affairs.

They steal our money already and that’s too much.

I’m with Squinch.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

22. Agreed

Let the gop and thier magats run themselves into the ground.

I wouldn't care if they all killed each other off.

[Cosmocat]

11. Naw, this is a symptom

the root cause is the poison of conservatism.

We cant' fix shit until this country recognizes what has gotten us here, and that we can't dig our way back out until conservatism and the party it supports is broadly repudiated.

[MineralMan]

12. OK, but changing that would require an entirely new Constitution.

This country is called the United States of America for a reason. It is not just a nation. It is a collection of individual states. The needs and capabilities of each state are different. So, the nation was formed in a way that gave most powers to the individual states, with federal powers restricted to only certain areas of governance.

The State of New York and the State of New Mexico are very different, with different resources, different populations, and different environments. Both states need to be able to pass laws that are designed for the unique qualities of that state and its citizens.

The Constitution sets some boundaries on those laws, in keeping with an intentional philosophy of government and individual rights. That was the solution come to by the authors of that document for the very complex issue of governing a nation that is so diverse in so many ways.

It's not a perfect system, by any means, but there is no such perfect system that is possible in such a large country.

We have only one election that involves the entire population - the election of President and Vice-President. And even that election is state-based. Which is the reason for the Electoral College, as awkward a system as it is.

We are not one country. We are 50 states that form a collaboration between themselves. It is that collaboration that is having problems. That is what needs to be corrected.

[Silent3]

14. Statehood *as currently defined* is the problem

There are good things that come out of having more localized control, and it's useful to have different states as laboratories for different policies.

But culture and commerce are far more intertwined these days than the Founders would have imagined in their day, when people identified much more strongly with their state than the new federal system that they were creating, when the fastest mode of both travel and communication was a horse.

The Constitution was written by the standards back then, however, and without changing the Constitution the federal government has very limited power in the states. We make end-runs around those limitations sometimes, like passing federal laws that the individual states don't strictly have to follow, but if they don't, then, well... no federal highway funds for you! Or we really stretch the meaning of "commerce" to justify federal jurisdiction.

[Polybius]

15. No we don't

Montana gun laws don't work in NYC, and NYC gun laws don't work in Montana.

[apnu]

17. Alexander Hamilton would agree.

[Progressive Jones]

18. We absolutely need to stop having States that

receive more Federal funding than they send to the Federal government.
Example: Kentucky gets over $2.00 in Federal funding per $1.00 sent to Washington.
Most, if not all, red States are a parasitic financial burden on this nation. This needs to end, ASAP.

[Mr.Bill]

25. The way I have always seen it is

it is the job of any member of congress to bring home as much money to his or her constituents as possible while keeping their taxes as low as possible. It's only natural that some will be better at it than others. And those who hold the more powerful positions within congress will have more ability to those things. Think twice about voting in "new blood" when the old timer has, for instance, a powerful committee chairmanship or ranking leadership position.

Of course in a perfect world every state would get back what they pay in taxes. If anyone thinks that will ever happen, I also have a unicorn for sale.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

19. There are a lot of things we need to fix at the fed level.

I'd add, making it tougher for one state to poach a business from another state. If we ever really address things like off-shoring jobs and setting up maildrop HQs in foreign tax havens, we should roll that into it as well.

On a more whimsical note, I'd also love to see some low-population states consolidated. Do we really need two Dakotas or would one big one be better?

[UTUSN]

20. K&R

[Buckeyeblue]

21. The problem is that we have states with small populations that get 2 Senators

And states with large populations getting...2 Senators.

The house needs to expand so the representation is equal.

We have a representative democracy that allows 35% of the country to act as the majority.

This needs talked about more and more.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

24. This👆

[JCMach1]

23. I would never want to risk that Constitution rewrite given the players

We would end up a dystopian corporatocracy...

Yes, it can get worse...

[roamer65]

27. Constitution gets opened and there will be a secession clause written into it.

I guarantee it.

Secession is perfectly legal right now as it is not specifically prohibited the Constitution. As such, via the 10th amendment, it is a power reserved by the states.


Now...before any one comes at me about the Civil War shit. That was the Union states by brute force imposing federalism upon the nation. It’s not defending the South. That just how it was.

[MichMan]

29. So you would be OK with a president like Trump seizing power from all the red state governors ?

Cuomo, Newsom and Whitmer all having to take their marching orders from him?

[Pantagruel]

30. I'd propose National referendums

to settle issues like gun control or abortion rights but states have perverted that process to the point where it simply takes legislative responsibility away from representatives and dumps it on voters who rarely fully understand the issues. Worse, the process is being hijacked by clever corporate manipulators.

Maybe if we limit it to one issue per election, to allow voters to focus on the pros and cons , with full televised debates?