IS there a good reason why states should have different laws?

Question

I understand how it began, simply states were too big, travel too difficult, it was easy for states to have their own laws and govern themselves.

But now with the connectivity and travel ability we have, state lines dont mean that much anymore. Why should in this day and age one thing be legal in one state and not in the other if we are a unified country.

One of the best examples is the age of consent, or the age at which a person can give consent to have sex. In one state it is 16, in another 18 and south carolina it was 14 for a time. So are children in south carolina more mature at 14 than children in Texas where the age of consent is 17? or new hampshire where it is 16? I am not advocating sex with minors, but it is absurd to think that someone could simply just drive a couple miles and what was once felonly rape of a child, is now perfectly allowable.
This is just one example of how state laws that are so different dont make sense in a society where people can simply move.

Once again i'm not asking why the current situation is, or where it came from. I can read the constitution. What i am asking is does having states soviergn rights make sense anymore in a time when the lines between states have become so blurred, and travel so easy.

I'm looking for opinion, not fact.

Answer 1

Are you suggesting one big State? It didn't work for the USSR. The States have the ability to govern themselves, set law specific to its population.

We are not Washington DC, and we don't want to be.

And you're right, in an age of information and transportation, you can certainly find a State where the laws suit you, and move.

And yes, they still make sense. Else Earth would only have one government.

Answer 2

Yes, the reason is called "States' Rights. The War Between the States, the Civil War, the War Between the North and South, (whatever historians choose to call the confrontation), was basically fought over the rights of each state to determine how that state would govern itself.

The Confederate States of America succumbed to the Army of the United States, losing their individual right to advocate slavery. Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation doomed the CSA, provided needed troops (black ones) to the Army of the United States, and assured victory for those who opposed slavery. This victory also polarized those, even in the states fighting on the side of the Army of the United States into action. The question: If the government can control the South, what will deter the government from trying to control us?

Every state has, and will continue, to advocate their "right" to govern themselves, and people can still choose the state they want to live in. The States of Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and other states have no State Income Tax. Some states offer tax additional tax incentives to senior citizens, corporations with headquarters in their state.

Liquor laws in states are different, too. In Oklahoma, I can't buy 5.2 percent (or as some people refer to it) 6 percent beer, in a grocery or convenience store; yet, when I lived in Missouri, I could buy 6 percent beer, wine, at a convenience store, and "hard" liquor at my local grocery store.

In Arkansas, there are still "dry" counties, where there is no alcholic beverages for sale, no matter what the content. Drive 15 miles into another county, though, and liquor is readily available.

In Oklahoma, the only legal casinos must be built and operated by a Federally regognized Native American Indian tribe, on that tribe's owned land. Indian sovereignty--not American sovereignty.

States' rights and sovereignty is paramount to political prowess.

Answer 3

The best reason is that a all powerful central government always ends badly. There is a saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The founding fathers left Europe's monarchies and governments where power was located within a central government. They had seen first hand how when people place too much power in the hands of a few individuals, it corrupts them and harms the people that they should be serving. Our government is set up with checks and balances, whether is is the judicial, executive, or legislative branch or whether it is a state government preserving it's values and laws in the face of a giant, bloated, inefficient bureaucracy like our federal government. Remember that our constitution says that all power should be with the states unless the constitution either specifically states or is changed to take on those responsibilities. It is too bad that we are slowly but surely drifting towards a massive central aristocracy...the very thing our founder's and their ancestors tried to escape.

Answer 4

I see what you mean; it seems kinda wacky (but then, we're a wacky bunch).

But think about it. You'd have to Ammend the Contsitution -- really radically. People have become reluctant to Amend it at all, let alone radically restructure it.

Then there's the question of what each of those laws should be.

People who love this or that law would howl at the changes.

So, I guess the best answer is that it isn't practical to change.

As well as people's fear of further concentrating power in a central government.

I mean, it's not all that just a central government, is it?

At least, when you have your state, you have some chance of that state's laws being ones you find somewhat livable, reflecting the more local culture.

Answer 5

Absolutely, it keeps us free!!!!! The basic premis of all we are, is Government by and for the majority. If the majority in South Carolina feels 14 is the proper age for consent, why should they have to comply with the feelings of people in Oregon, who might feel that 21 is appropriate. If I live in a wide open state like Montana, Why should I have to live with hunting and fishing laws from a crowded state like Massachusetts? The constitution originally was set up with strong local government, and a lessor national government for that reason. However, being human, we have screwed that up with bureaucracy, allowing government, like a cancer, to grow faster than the rest of the body.

Answer 6

Well it is ok for the states to have thier own laws.However these laws should'nt countermand federal laws.For example it would be unreasonable for the feds to make a blanket rule on resources,Say like water,cost or housing.Otherwise the states have the right over infrastructure.I do agree that the age of consent shuld be uniform

Answer 7

It's great that each state has the option to have different laws. Each state's people vote to make their laws.I wouldn't want Washington to dictate for all of us. Why would we not want that right? I don't agree with some states' laws but I don't live there and I don't vote on theirs. I get to vote on my own and I'm glad I have that right.

Answer 8

Yes, because each state is sovereign -- meaning subject to its own rule.

And if there was any ambiguity, the 10th Amendment specifically granted to the states the right to make their own laws.