Where's the balance between "laboratory" and equal rights?

Question

One of the reasons given for the structure of our government in the USA, from the federal to the local level, is to inspire a little competition between various localities for innovative solutions to "problems" (real, imagined or contrived). At the same time, the fact that much of our government isn't standardized means that your rights may vary by your location in the United States -- a person in Iowa may have more or less rights than a person in Montanta.

So where is the balance, or is this a flawed concept?

Answer 1

This is an outstanding question. Let me give it a try...

The idea of equal rights was never meant to be taken to mean, "completely uniform rights." Rather the concept as it has evolved over the years (particularly after the adoption of the 14th Amendment) has come to mean that there will be a foundation of laws that will be consistant throughout the land (basic provisions of Due Process and Equal Protection) but that this should in no way preclude the states from adding others.

Thus, in some states one can get a driver's license at 16, while in others the age is 15. Driving an automobile is not considered a "fundamental" right, and therefore the states are free to experiment. Consider fundamental protections to be the floor of society. That floor must be completely level. But the structures built on the floor are permitted to vary from state to state. And that's a good thing.

The concept of "50 laboratory societies" was coined by Terry Sanford, who wrote the seminal work on Intergovernmental Relations, "Storm over the States." In this work, Sanford, (who was also Governor of the State of North Carolina) argued that complete uniformity of state actions would harm the nation.

He reasoned that with 50 states all doing things in a slightly different manner, we could all examine the results and learn much more quickly when something either worked or did not. As a result, the quality of government would improve because of the high number of "experiments" in government always going on at state level. Simply put, you always have 49 other experiments to compare yours against, so you're bound to learn more, and learn quicker.

The biggest proponent of Sanford's vision was President Bill Clinton, who understood (as a former governor himself) that really innovative government was not to be found at the federal level, but at the level of the (laboratory) states. Throughout his eight years he turned to the states time and again to see what actions they were taking that could be used at the federal level.

Clinton's welfare reform initiatives were taken from the states of Wisconsin and Oregon, while his (alas, failed) health insurance reform initiative was taken from the state of Hawaii.

Equal rights creates a solid floor of uniform basic rights; and 50 Laboratory States helps to ensure a continuing innovation made possible only through a robust diversity. They fit quite well together.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

It's a flawed concept when it comes to constitutional rights.

The concept of the laboratory is to allow different social standards, and different ways of living. It wasn't intended to set different standards for the application of fundamental rights.

That's why the core Constitution has the Privileges and Immunities clause, and the Full Faith and Credit clause, in Article IV. Not to mention the Supremacy clause. So that people were guaranteed certain minimum protections regardless of where the lived.

The balance comes in understanding that it's wrong to hate people for being different. And that "not in my state" only works for things that aren't guaranteed personal freedoms and civil liberties under the constitution.

Answer 3

It is all an ongoing experiment. Societies and their values are constantly evolving. There is never a balance. Life is full of situations which are unfair to one party or the other. These competing interests will ensure that the experiment continues.