I see the problems every day....Gay marriage, abortion, gun control, drug laws....Why are we wasting time and money forcing the federal government to handle these problems? You cannot have the same marriage laws in Tennessee that you do California! Stop forcing all these ideological problems on the feds! Every State has different cultures and values and they should be treated as such!
2007-09-06 09:36:57 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Everyone, I know the reasons all ready.... I am asking about the ideal.
2007-09-06 10:49:32 · update #1
It is the Federal government that has overstepped thier bounds and intruded on State's rights to decide matters for themselves. For instance in the state of Oregon the federal government has attacked the death with dignity act (that happened almost as soon as Bush got into office and nominated John Ashcroft as AG), the medical marijuana laws (again a thorn in their side, if it were coke they probably wouldn't mind though), and put an end to gay marriage and nullified the marriages that did occur in two counties. More to the point it was the republican party when they were in control that did most of the overstepping. We finally voted many of them out of office because they falsely represented our beliefs. Because the gay marriage initiative lost by a narrow margin on the premise that gays could and would still have equal rights because they could be domestic partners or whatever they called it in Vermont, the republican party refused to let it come up for a vote again because they spouted the same nonsense that Bush did about having capital. Anyway, I don't think the states have asked the federal government to step in. They took it upon themselves, and it is unwanted and unwelcome.
2007-09-06 09:52:00 · answer #1 · answered by Penny K 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Some of these things need to be divided up on a federal level. Why? Because the Civil War showed us what happens when you split up all our ideals amongst the states. You have people shifting out of their states to others in order to find one that suits what they want. Thus you have less diversity of opinion per state. Which means all the states would become perfectly divided on what they think.
Beyond that, anyone who decides to stay in a state where they can't get the freedoms they want (for example: gay marriage or abortion) would likely be persecuted heavily in that state. Many of these people simply could not afford such a move.
I'm not saying it's not important to have states decide some of these issues, but many of the more touchy ones have to have some unity on a national level. Otherwise you destroy any possibility of this being one country united.
2007-09-06 09:58:00 · answer #2 · answered by whiteflame55 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with state rights because the Tennessse, or Montana will never will allow gay marriage, and states like California, Massacuttes probadly will. The United States is 300 million people, and should have more control over marriage laws, tax laws, and even immigration laws. Still, America traditionally will always have the strict consituionists will object to anything outside the bounds of the bill of rights. American idea is freedom in the presuit of happiness, and that quote will never stripped from the consutition.
2007-09-06 09:51:48 · answer #3 · answered by ram456456 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 10th Amendment is basically "surplusage"--it only states a "truism" that whatever the federal government doesn't do, the states can control...since the federal government can find an excuse to control virtually everything (see the Commerce Clause), the states are left with very little discretion in most matters.
2007-09-06 09:46:19 · answer #4 · answered by makrothumeo2 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
somebody needs to enhance up, even with the shown fact that it extremely is not you. The so noted as 'community rules' are actually not decrease than any form of regulation, with the exception or threatening, racist, pedophile and those kinds of posts. comparable issues that are unlawful for a newspaper or mag to print. 2 violations for the comparable question, with distinctive motives proves 2 issues basically. a million) The so noted as rules are too subjective and the Trolls be attentive to that, 2) The community won't be able to police itself without some form of administration on the right. computerized VN's and suspensions could properly be generated via ability of one troll making use of two money owed to 'checklist' a query. I agree that Yahoo needs to take greater accountability for the habit in this internet site and the two enforce the 'regulations' for all..or none.
2016-10-18 03:58:27 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
makrothumeo2 is right. Take some constitutional law classes and you will see the way that the federal government can find a reason in the constitution to control a lot of things you would *think* belong to states. That's just the way the document was written.
2007-09-06 09:56:32 · answer #6 · answered by SMS 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
State's rights are alive and well. Any power not outlined by the constitution to be federal, or any subject not covered by a federal law is the domain of the state. In fact, many states do differ on their gay marriage, abortion, gun control and drug laws.
Some blue states allow gay marriage.
South Dakota has practically outlawed abortion.
Virginia recently clamped down on gun control for those who might have mental problems.
In Alaska, about 2 years ago, you could legally have 4 ounces of marijuana in your posession (!)
2007-09-06 09:57:22 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Vote for Ron Paul and other libertarians.
The states should recover their independence. The federal government was supposed to be an entity serving the states. But since the start of federal taxes, with control of the federal reserve and the army, it has become the owner of the states. All the state governments are afraid of going against the federal government because it's their main source of income. They don't care if the state itself, its population, is not getting the freedom and care they deserve. It's all about keeping the government going on.
2007-09-06 09:49:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
State Rights went out the window several years ago. Most blame Bush and FEMA for the disaster of New Orleans AFTER hurricane Katrina. The blame game should have started with the mayor and the governor. Blaming anyone else exemplifies a lack of personal ownership and responsibility. Truly, it was lost when states started accepting federal money for things like education.
2007-09-06 09:49:40 · answer #9 · answered by Doc 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Vote for Ron Paul. He is the only candidate which endorses the return to states rights.
Everybody else wants all the power centralized with the federal government and the executive branch.
2007-09-06 09:51:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋