States should rise up.

Instead of just complaining.

There are supporters of states' rights that complain that the federal government is usurping all state powers and meddling in state-level affairs. But time and again I feel that the only thing that's in the way is inaction.

As you can see from Article V, the states have the ultimate power to change the Constitution via convention. If enough states are dissatisfied with the federal government, such as the current Congress, then they can band together and demand another Philadelphia Convention. Now what would happen there is up to debate, but assuming that it works well, the states can then convince the rest to ratify the changes.

Article V of the United States Constitution:

My opinion is this: in practice, I don't agree with states' rights movement at large since the federal government does have necessary roles. But I do see the need for respecting home rule.

My main issue, though, with states' rights advocates is that the answer's right in their face and they're not using it. If they want the changes so badly, they should speak up to their state legislatures and realize that states can act on their own if they would only cooperate.

edited 20th Feb '12 12:51:09 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

Ugh. "States' Rights."

States don't have rights, people have rights. States are administrative sectors; nothing more.

Though this may be useful, I guess, for trying to alter the Federal Government. It'll never happen, though.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Why won't it happen? If people are pressured enough, who knows.

Taking sides depends on the situation. If the people of the states gather up as one, the state can speak on their behalf. That's what I mean by states' rights.

Now using Trivialis handle.

Because the States spend too much time quibbling over what to do. Remember, there are plenty of conservative States who are plenty happy with the status quo, as it keeps conservatives in power, so why change things?

I am now known as Flyboy.

You never know, though. It varies among states. Some states are more directly influenced by their people. And in times of crisis or nationwide dissatisfaction, it remains an option.

The inability of the Congress to face this directly is a big source of motivation. The 17th amendment was almost forced upon by the threat of a convention, after all.

But even if it's unlikely (and of course it is, we haven't had one yet), it's worth the talk. For one I've gotten interested in Saving American Democracy Amendment from the other thread. What else might be worth this?

edited 17th Dec '11 1:25:52 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

Living near the geographic center of the continent, the insistence of State's Rights always kind of rankled me. I don't want to end up like Mongolia.

I've never liked the "red state vs. blue state" mentality. It's not like everyone in a state is either a liberal or conservative; in many elections the entire state's votes might be counted one way or another, even though the actual votes for either party in the state's population were much closer.

edited 17th Dec '11 1:18:18 PM by TrevMUN

Ideally, government would be as localized as possible: That way, to escape the Puritans's shit you only need to find a community that ain't full with'em.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

The title of this thread makes it sound like you're talking about revolution.

Now, I'm quite a bit concerned these days about the hypocritical and schizo ways that politicians want to use state's rights in the modern era. For one, Arizona wants to make its own foreign policy. And the far Right wants to make abortions illegal all over the nation, as well as gay marriage. All of these are things the Right wants. And it is all stupid.

We are the United States; we cannot afford to have fifty different foreign policies in one country. And it is fucking hypocritical of the Conservatives to then cry out "police this woman" to the federal government after advocating for local governance for their own medical and other assorted issues.

So yeah, I don't really put much stock in anyone claiming states rights these days because I here it from a bunch of politicians who are mostly just following the far right party line. And it is fucking ridiculous.

Maybe I should clarify the topic.

I'm talking about the constitutional convention option in Article V. If, and emphasis on if, the states really wanted changes, they need to look no further than themselves being united. States should rise up together. I'm not talking about individual states wanting to do whatever they want in violating of basic natural rights or anything.

I do think the federal government has done some good, such as secure civil rights against stubborn states. And I do think people's rights transcend states' rights. It's just that the federal government has expanded in order to do this (secure people's rights) and other things. The states' rights advocates think this is unfair. But it's not. The ultimate power of elections and amendments still rests on the states. This is not advocacy; this is a fact, laid down in the article.

Now using Trivialis handle.

I don't like states' rights.

Now, I don't want them done away with entirely. They're a valuable part of our system of checks and balances.

But for the most part, state governments are arrogant, provincial, and poor decision-makers. I like them marginalized. At least that way we won't get things like the Civil War ever again. The states are not ever going to work together, and we shouldn't empower them so that a large bloc can screw things up for everyone else.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

What exactly are they supposed to rise up against, abstract? Anything people would want amended right now is something (big businesses) quite a few politicians at the federal AND state level have no reason to change until the people start voting for someone who isn't quite as much in the sway of big business.

I will admit that my first inclination to seeing a topic like "The States Should Rise Up" made me think of Jericho or the events in Homefront's backstory.

Eh. I like federalism/subsidarism. What I don't like what's happening in the USA is how this is used as an argument for unequal representation, i.e. Wyoming has 2 senators and California has 2 senators. Sets a dangerous precedent for the EU, too. People should always be represented fully proportionally, since, as USAF has said, people have rights, not states. Federalism should simply mean states have internal autonomy. Internal autonomy.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

The Senate works like that, the House works the other way. Balances out, in theory.

In fact, it still balances out, largely because the issue turned out not to matter. Neither the House nor the Senate is much more likely to incline to any particular side.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

But that's the point. If there is a majority, it should incline. The power to stop legislation is as much a power as the power to get through legislation. And since most of those wilderness states are Republican, or at least conservative in outlook, that means conservatives are absolutely overrepresented in US political decision making. For a decade or so, for example, a (narrow) majority of US citizens is actually supportive of gay marriage - but since their representation in the legislature is distorted, that doesn't matter.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

The senate is only half of the legislature and is meant to prevent tyranny of the majority, which is always a risk in democratic systems

@Savage,

No, that's a terrible idea. We're the United States of America, not the United States of California, New York, Texas, and Florida.

I don't particularly like the idea of simply being dictated to by California. At least in the current system we can force political equality.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I think that not going along with the narrow majority sometimes is worth it when it prevents the minority from being bulldozed at other times.

Take the XL pipeline, for example. It goes through many sparsely populated states. If governing was done by majority, it would probably already be built already because the coastal states and residents just wouldn't care

And that won't happen anyway. In the USA, political allegiances by far weight heavier than any state identities.

In fact, state barriers are IMO best abolished in national-level elections in general. One could have cross-state election districts, or maybe even a nation-wide proportional representation voting system.

Plus my entire point is that there is no equality.

So instead you get a tyranny (or at least privilege) of those who happen to be in thinly settled regions.

edited 17th Dec '11 4:35:26 PM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Do you know how many states 2/3 of 50 is? 34...

The United States can barely get thirty states to agree on anything.

Wizard Needs Food Badly

It's a very slight privilege, Octo. We do all right.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

I do not think tyranny of the minority is what's going on here. Well, there is some of that going on here, but it's the Montanans tyrranizing the New Yorkers.

Yeah... getting Americans to agree on things is very difficult.

edited 17th Dec '11 5:10:09 PM by ohsointocats

The states dont have rights anyhow. Theres the weight of multiple court decisions saying that the Interstate C Ommerce Clause basically means states only have rights when the government allows them to.

Ugh.

I don't understand why people want this, I can only imagine it's because they don't know a whole lot about real revolutions and get most of their ideas on what one is like from the movies. Revolutions are bloody, long affairs that rarely end well for the rebels. Even if this kind of thing were to end well for the rebels, there's the matter of making each state self-sufficient as its own country (that's even assuming the states themselves would stay together) which is a long, grueling, thoroughly unpleasant process. It's much easier for colonies to revolt as they're more likely to be self-sufficient, which is why it worked for our country the first time. You'll note that the last time states tried to revolt (The Civil War) they lost.

go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagine