States should rise up.

The American constitution doesn't, but the American federal government does.

For example, the powers of the Fed Gov could be re-enumerated and thus wholly changed. We could get rid of the Senate and ensure that the House is elected nationally. We'd also need a rewrite of the Commece Clause, to limit abuses thereof (like regulating intrastate noncommercial activities on the basis that they affect interstate commerce). States that are fully sovereign on their internal affairs (only bound to the Bill of Rights), an unicameral federal legislative elected nationally (to prevent gerrymandering) and dedicated solely to interstate affairs, a Supreme court being able to interfere with State laws when they violate civil rights, and a few other changes...

They'd go a long way against the problem of liberals meddling in conservative States and conservatives meddling in liberal States.

The simplest and quickest fix would be a re-drafting of the Supremacy clauses: A set of issues on which the States will be the final authority, and a small set of reserved powers on which the Feds will be the final arbiter. The Feds can't be supreme on issues that ain't none of their business to begin with, that's madness and gets us shit like nationwide drug prohibition and a drinking age of 21.

edited 18th Dec '11 5:44:47 AM by SavageHeathen

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

Well it's not like a debate about the merits of German federalism would garner much attention here. The majority of tropers (and I do think not only a plurality but indeed an absolute majority) are US-Americans. So, I'm just accommodating to the local discussion culture here.

Plus I'm speaking in commonplaces. What I say are general opinions, that can be applied on any federal structure, not just the USA.

On that I agree. States should have great internal autonomy. But no say on the federal level.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

@ Savage: How about devolving further, down to the County Level?

Keep Rolling On

How does this relate to the states rising up?

@Professor: It's a thread about how the States might, by constitutional convention, assert themselves against Federal power (By amending out the Feds' supremacy, for instance). IIRC, Conventions require referenda but bypass Congress. Interestingly, we repealed Prohibition through a Convention.

On purely local issues? Yeah.

On other issues, that creates a lot of problems: Let's say I manufacture hunting rifles in Tacoma (where it's legal) and sell them in Spokane (where it's legal). However, shipping routes take the Junction towards Seattle and then go East. Unfortunately, rifles happen to be illegal in Seattle. (It's not the case, it's just a hypothetical) Should Seattle's gun control be able to prevent a Tacoman from shipping guns to Spokane?

Normally, the State government would chip in: "Even if you do ban guns, guns that merely go through your county into a place where sale is legal are kosher. That's also the case on goods that are banned by certain States but not by the Feds. They can't be sold in, but they can be taken through. That's why the Feds are supposed to regulate interstate commerce, and the States are supposed to regulate inter-county commerce: The only problem is when they abuse that power to dictate what can or can't be sold intra-state or intra-county.

edited 18th Dec '11 6:06:34 AM by SavageHeathen

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

I'm all for states rising up against a Federal Government not there for them when truly needed like this one... But not until more progressives get in power (which probably won't happen anytime soon, but it's good to think about).

Otherwise, you're going to have to convince the mainstream public why this is necessary before any of this can come into fruition. And right now, people just want most of Congress voted out before violence happens against it, not for the US to divide into 50 or more small nations, most of whose economies would implode if this happened, causing even more problems.

There would have to be enough dissent in Federal offices to encourage this, overall between state Reps/Senators, before this even becomes a feasible solution to America's problem with lacking freedom and democracy within state leadership.

...And I'm usually the guy who thinks violent revolution/anarchy towards issues like this would make solutions appear in a hurting/corrupt society like ours faster. But, yeah. I know that will never work right now.

TL;DR or didn't understand? This won't work unless someone is willing to repeat the Civil War and risk it all against the military system.

This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio

@Octo: It's likelier than you think.

And you're grossly oversimplifying American politics by saying "It's all on party lines!" rather than state lines. There are actually 50 Republican parties and 50 Democratic parties in the US because different states have concerns about different things and therefore have different ideas on what a Republican and a Democrat should do. You see states that are "red" and "blue" during federal elections but who has governmental control on the state level is sometimes (in my experience, often, because of where I live) in the other party's hands. You're overlooking a lot of subtleties in the current US governmental system.

I'm pretty sure, anyway, the only way one would be able to make a system of completely proportional representation fair is to completely eschew state lines and even regions, and assign each citizen a voting pool, probably based on something like social security number. This way, a Californian and a Montanan and a Louisianan would be voting within the same group of people, but their neighbors would be looking at different pools. This way would be most fair, because then the candidate would not have any allegiance to a particular state because they had no idea who voted them in, but it would make the US political process, especially campaigning, a lot more complicated than it already is.

And, at least in my experience, people do still have some loyalty to their state, warranted or not, so this sort of change would be met with a lot of resistance and would not be seen as an improvement.

edited 18th Dec '11 7:17:06 AM by ohsointocats

Speaking of which, anyone who ascribes to "red vs blue state" mentality should see this map◊.

That's the 2008 presidential election results by county, on a color spectrum where pure blue represents Democratic votes, and red represents Republican ones. Notice how there isn't all that much deep red or deep blue?

But thanks to our electoral college system, none of that matters. If its 51% blue, all the votes go blue, thus it becomes a blue state. And likewise for red.

Yes, the last election was kind of strange in that with a slight majority Obama got the vast majority of the electoral votes.

But for all its flaws the electoral college does have advantages — for one, it self-adjusts for nonresponse.

That's beside the point.

There are people who think that when a state is counted as "red" or "blue" in an election, that the vast majority of people in that state must be toeing the Republican or Democrat party line. It's led to a lot of disgusting stereotyping ever since the 2004 elections, from both sides—even to the point where people see the "opposing" states and everyone in them as "the enemy."

A map that shows margins of victory by county lines is strong proof that Americans are not so easily pigeonholed.

edited 18th Dec '11 7:42:14 AM by TrevMUN

True but American Politics and Society has degenerated into one giant "Us vs Them" so sadly its to be expected.

edited 18th Dec '11 7:43:13 AM by Thorn14

OSIC: Not so much party lines, but ideological lines. After all, the flyover states do vote Democrats - however, those are often more conservative than New England Republicans. What you say about US parties, that they are very loose organizations, is true, but it's also irrelevant: What matters is that Senators and representatives mostly vote according to ideological and not state lines, and that the conservative ideology (though it doesn't matter which one) is overrepresented. Unfairly overrepresented.

It's an inequality and unfairness to the people of California, New York, Texas. What should prevent California from dominating the rest is the Internal autonomy of the other states, i.e. that the federal government can only dictate so much. That is what federalism should be about. But on the federal level, if California has enough people, then by all means its electorate should dominate matters.

Also, that's a very complicated way for completely proportional and nation-wide elections. Why not simply do away with election districts and use proportional representation, most likely a list system? I'm just saying, at least that would be very much simplier and better established then what you are proposing, heh.

The problem still remains that a certain group of people is vastly and unfairly overrepresented and another underrepresented. If that actually distorts in favour of a certain ideology or not (and I think it does) is irrelevant - what matters is that distortion in the first place, even if it should be unaimed.

edited 18th Dec '11 9:49:38 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Federal law is the supreme law of the land, no matter what. Theoretically, they could turn the plains states into a toxic waste dump. There is very little noblesse oblige in the US, if you haven't noticed. The only thing stopping them would be. Nothing short of outright revolt, and we see how well that worked for the South.

And so you do admit, this does have to do with liberal versus conservative. Tell me, if it was the other way around, would you still be in support of this? No, I am guessing, probably not.

And if people vote on party lines, keep in mind that many "red" states have both dermoctrat and republican senators. If it really was strictly on party lines, things would look a lot different. Even when the Dems had a philibustering majority, they couldn't get anything done. The system is not the problem, the problem is most Democrats being spineless.

So is that what you usually do? Make assumptions about people? Obnoxious bullshit.

But so you do admit that you're against that because you want to retain unfair conservative dominance? After all you appeared very sensible about that point.

edited 18th Dec '11 10:01:39 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

I do not like conservative dominance but I do not think it is unfair, either. After all, politics are fickle and even this will change.

I am talking about representation for something else — land use. Especially as environmental problems become more prevalent. Despite having a small population, the midwest and plains have some of the most fertile land in the world. It makes no sense for the people from California and New York to decide what to do with it.

Sure, the current system is not perfect. Probably the thing that would make most sense would be to keep a population representative house for people issues (health care, social security) and a physical area representation house for land use (then again, Alaska would probably end up with more senators than residents).

Oh So Into Cats said that "After all, politics are fickle and even this will change."

And he's right.◊ The guy who made that "Purple America" map, Robert J. Vanderbei, went back and did the same thing for every presidential election from 1964 to 2004.

As you can see, the American public is hardly static in which side it will vote for.

Land use is irrelevant. People decide, not land.

So what? It makes no difference at all. The problem of unproportional representation, the problem of giving a certain amount of people way more power than it's fair, is still there. How they then use that power is irrelevant. The problem is them having it in the first place.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Land use is very important and certain groups have no business of talking about it. For example, Rhode Island is vastly overrepresented in the farm bill and such. Don't worry, California and New York and Florida and Texas will still be adequately represented, as they are still fairly large states.

Polar bears and cornfields can't vote, no, but that doesn't mean they are not important.

That's all that matters. They can't vote. People vote. Only people should matter in that. You prevent undue domination of local central US state affairs by granting them enough autonomy against the federal government, not by letting them unduly dominate said government.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

So my home deserves to be a toxic cesspit.

Thanks.

Oh for fucks's sake, yes, that's clearly what I'm saying.

So you're from one of those states? My, what a surprise! You're just defending your unjust privileges.

edited 18th Dec '11 11:25:04 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Actually, considering, my state would benefit and gain leverage over many states.

Savage, regarding your idea of a Constitutional Convention removing federal powers; Not going to happen. Simply because a lot of the state legislature's folks go on to a federal position. It is simply not in their favor to take away their own potential power. (Really, as it currently stands, state positions are like the training bicycle.)

Octo: What you suggest simply wouldn't fly here. The smaller states deserve some protections from the bigger ones, because in many cases that would result in them getting trampled. For one, I can easily see the folks in my state bullying the folks in Nebraska into taking on the XL pipeline, which is all kinds of bad. But hey, Texas has the population (as well as the oil as an impetus) so who the fuck cares if Nebraska's aquifer gets fucked up? (Not that Nebraska's current reps in the House are great right now, but this is a likely scenario in what you suggest.)

Seriously, our two house system works just fine. I don't see why you're so mad about the structure of a legislature in a country you don't live in.

edited 18th Dec '11 12:47:47 PM by AceofSpades

Octo already said, "it sets a bad precedence for the EU."