gun laws, voting rights, etc., etc., should we revert more towards states rights like America was originally conceived? And just let the individual states decide what their constituancy wants?
2007-07-30 07:42:18 · 8 answers · asked by Steelhead 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A part of me would like to say yes.. but at the same time a weak federal government relative to the state governments aided in the rise of the civil war. It merits some thought.. but it does not merit jumping into.
2007-07-30 07:46:51 · answer #1 · answered by pip 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You are a bit confused about the subject. Abortion was decided by the states, originally. Liberal activists created a phony law suit that a liberal Supreme Court used to create bad law from the bench and claimed there was a constitutional right to abortion and jammed it down every state's throat.
Gay marriage cannot be decided on a state by state basis because every state is required to recognize marriages performed in other states (just like state issued driver's licenses). That would allow one single state to jam that down every other state's throat.
Gun rights and voting rights are protected by the constitution and cannot be changed on a state by state basis. States can and do have some latitude in how these rights are implemented for instance, most states do not allow convicted felons to possess firearms or to vote. They have less latitude restricting law abiding citizens' rights.
.
2007-07-30 15:02:42 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not a bad idea. but there's no consensus on that either. When some states and cities allowed gay marriage, conservatives demanded federal action to ban it. When southern states enacted laws designed to keep minorities from voting, progressives demanded federal action to overturn them. And of course, even in individual states there is little agreement. We call states with 51% Republican voters conservative and 51% Democrat liberal, but 51% is hardly a mandate. The truth is that Americans at every level are divided on almost every issue, despite all the claims on Yahoo Answers and in letters to the editor of that nation's newspapers that "Everybody knows" something or other.
2007-07-30 14:51:00 · answer #3 · answered by TG 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Marriage is already a states rights issue, as there are not supposed to be any federal marriage laws. Limits on access to abortion are likewise left to the states. Same with voting (Except for the minimum age) and gun control. So pretty much we already have what you want.
2007-07-30 14:50:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with this is that if one state recognizes gay marriage, it must be recognized in all states who have not passes specific laws banning it. it in effect allows one state to decide for all. Not an acceptable solution either. This same problem was encountered during the slavery period. Some states such as kansas were not delegated as pro or anti slavery and persons with slaves moved into them. This ended up creating all kinds of vigilantism and turf wars.
2007-07-30 14:47:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem with that is so many people travel back and forth, it would get so confusing.
I think the government needs to just mind it's own business on personal matters.
2007-07-30 14:48:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
How about we let the states have their own currency too. This is the United States of America buddy.
2007-07-30 14:47:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
That certainly would be a good thing. Sadly, there are just too many busy-body elitists who don't believe that people can make their own decisions.
2007-07-30 14:47:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋