States' rights?

[Ultralight]

I am rethinking the idea of states' rights.

Perhaps this is a good way to deal with the massive cultural/political divide in America. Give the states more rights -- many more -- so that liberal states could be more liberal and right-wing states could be more right-wing.

So long as people could keep moving from one state to another, this could work!

Thoughts?

[LDAHL]

That was the original idea. A relatively small federal government, with most of the action at the state and local level. Back before people didn't regard "states' rights" as a code for racism, that's pretty much how it was. I once read that in the beginning the only federal crimes were treason, counterfeiting and piracy. Today, we have an executive branch issuing diktats on who can use which bathroom.

As I see it, generations of politicians and judges have abused the Commerce Clause and the collection and distribution of the income tax as a means of top-down control. That's a major impediment to states acting as "laboratories of democracy."

[Ultralight]

Well, I can't very well go out there as a liberal and start parading around about how States' Rights could be a good thing!

[LDAHL]

Well, I can't very well go out there as a liberal and start parading around about how States' Rights could be a good thing!

Think of it this way: would you be more comfortable right now if it didn't much matter who was president?

[ToomuchStuff]

We went to a strong central government, because of a collection of strong state governments, decided to succeed.

[JaneV2.0]

I think one good thing that could come out of this mess is that states might be rethinking the idea of an all-powerful federal government. LDAHL is right that the conflation of "state's rights" with Jim Crow laws has a lot to do with the decline of a federalist approach. Here on the West Coast, the three contiguous states have all reiterated their progressive policies in statements by governors and mayors, and a lot of citizens are more than ready to secede--which wouldn't be nearly as attractive an option if we had meaningful rights as states to self-govern.

[bae]

Thoughts?

States are different creatures now than they were when the Nation was founded, or even when the Nation was reforged in the Civil War.

The lines are no longer drawn state-by-state. If you look at precinct and county-level election results, you'll see that there's a big rural/urban divide in most states, and the gap between these demographics continues IMO to grow.

I think any "solution" to whatever problem needs to carefully account for this.

[bae]

Here on the West Coast, the three contiguous states have all reiterated their progressive policies in statements by governors and mayors, and a lot of citizens are more than ready to secede--which wouldn't be nearly as attractive an option if we had meaningful rights as states to self-govern.

Well, the wealthy, liberal, densely-populated parts of those states are muttering about secession. They might do well to look at the map of their states a bit more carefully though - huge swathes of those states, lightly-populated rural areas, with control of food/water/energy/resource production, are of a different mindset than the urban areas.

It's very Hunger Games.

[ApatheticNoMore]

It can't be *entirely* unimportant who is president as long as things like nuclear weapons exist. That line has been crossed in 1945, there's no going back (short of world nuclear disarmament and while it might be a good idea, it doesn't seem on the agenda). Really does anyone in their right mind want 50 states each with their own nuclear arsenal? States rights to a degree maybe, but .... not all the way. Things like trade agreements have not been signed by states either but maybe trade agreements aren't going to go so far with Trump anyway (good).

[bae]

Really does anyone in their right mind want 50 states each with their own nuclear arsenal? States rights to a degree maybe, but .... not all the way. Things like trade agreements have not been signed by states either but maybe trade agreements aren't going to go so far with Trump anyway (good).

A reading of the Constitution might prove helpful.

[JaneV2.0]

Well, the wealthy, liberal, densely-populated parts of those states are muttering about secession. They might do well to look at the map of their states a bit more carefully though - huge swathes of those states, lightly-populated rural areas, with control of food/water/energy/resource production, are of a different mindset than the urban areas.

It's very Hunger Games.

I'm aware of this. I'd divide Washington and Oregon down the Cascades and let the Eastern parts go with Idaho, which should work well for all parties.

[bae]

I'm aware of this. I'd divide Washington and Oregon down the Cascades and let the Eastern parts go with Idaho, which should work well for all parties.

My county would prefer to scootch over to BC, I suspect.

[JaneV2.0]

My county would prefer to scootch over to BC, I suspect.

Wouldn't we all. There are those who would graciously extend the northern border of Cascadia to include BC, but I doubt there would be any takers.

[bae]

Wouldn't we all. There are those who would graciously extend the northern border of Cascadia to include BC, but I doubt there would be any takers.

San Juan County is only inside the USA because of a wee war with Great Britain, we could just as easily be eating poutine right now :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)

https://www.nps.gov/sajh/learn/historyculture/english-camp.htm

https://www.nps.gov/sajh/learn/historyculture/american-camp.htm

[JaneV2.0]

So close. :doh:

[creaker]

I expect we're going to see a big flip-flop on the opinions of states rights with power changing hands. Many folks just see states rights as a tool to use when it's politically expedient - and step on it when it's not.