Here are a couple somethings I don't get.

First, why do we have a government system where there are federal laws, which govern the entire nation, and state laws, which only govern their respective state? What is the point to that?

Second, why do we do the electoral college when we vote for our President? Doesn't it make more sense to just have a purely popular vote? I think that more truly represents the nation's choice.

Forgive me if there's something I'm totally missing. I haven't taken Government class yet. :o

Thanks in advance!

-- Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all! Athelwulf.

First, why do we have a government system where there are federal laws, which govern the entire nation, and state laws, which only govern their respective state? What is the point to that?
This is a legal safety net because if America votes in say a leftwing goverment which enacts economic policies which hamper the free market system the States themselves dont have too obey them .
Second, why do we do the electoral college when we vote for our President? Doesn't it make more sense to just have a purely popular vote? I think that more truly represents the nation's choice.
This is a political filter designed to hamper third parties from attaining any sway , like Ross Perot in the 92 election when he received 19% of the vote but no electoral college votes . All in all these are safety catches designed to hamper the peoples will from interfering with the Plutocratic order .

This is a legal safety net because if America votes in say a leftwing goverment which enacts economic policies which hamper the free market system the States themselves dont have too obey them .

I don't really understand this.

This is a political filter designed to hamper third parties from attaining any sway , like Ross Perot in the 92 election when he received 19% of the vote but no electoral college votes . All in all these are safety catches designed to hamper the peoples will from interfering with the Plutocratic order .

Why can't third parties attain some sway? What's wrong with that? Again, I don't understand.

Here are a couple somethings I don't get.

First, why do we have a government system where there are federal laws, which govern the entire nation, and state laws, which only govern their respective state? What is the point to that?

Second, why do we do the electoral college when we vote for our President? Doesn't it make more sense to just have a purely popular vote? I think that more truly represents the nation's choice.

Forgive me if there's something I'm totally missing. I haven't taken Government class yet. :o

Thanks in advance!

-- Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all! Athelwulf.

1. Federal laws are those that protect the civil liberties of the people. They are the most basic laws of the nation. State laws are used because what's good in New York, may not be good in Oregon. In California we need tough smog laws to protect the air, but they aren't needed in many other states for example. Don't forget city laws which go even deeper.

2. The US was crerated as a republic. The electoral college made sense 200 years ago, but it's outdated now.

1. Federal laws are those that protect the civil liberties of the people. They are the most basic laws of the nation. State laws are used because what's good in New York, may not be good in Oregon. In California we need tough smog laws to protect the air, but they aren't needed in many other states for example. Don't forget city laws which go even deeper.

I can accept this to some extent. But what I don't like is the fact that some laws that should be federal are currently state laws. For example, the minimum age someone can get married is determined by the states and not the country. That doesn't make sense.

2. The US was crerated as a republic. The electoral college made sense 200 years ago, but it's outdated now.

If it's outdated, then we can get rid of it, right?

I can accept this to some extent. But what I don't like is the fact that some laws that should be federal are currently state laws. For example, the minimum age someone can get married is determined by the states and not the country. That doesn't make sense.

It makes it easier for different areas to conform to their values. For example, in California you could probably get gay marriage legal, but in Kentucky I doubt it would fly.

If it's outdated, then we can get rid of it, right?
In theory, but the states themselves would have to vote for it, and I doubt they want to give up the power.

It makes it easier for different areas to conform to their values. For example, in California you could probably get gay marriage legal, but in Kentucky I doubt it would fly.

Yeah, the Kentuckans just want them to remain as their gimps. ;)

- N

The system sux how about that.

...why do we have a government system where there are federal laws, which govern the entire nation, and state laws, which only govern their respective state? What is the point to that?The tenth amendment to the Constitution:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

...why do we do the electoral college when we vote for our President? Doesn't it make more sense to just have a purely popular vote? I think that more truly represents the nation's choice.The founding fathers decided that The more populous industrial states like NY, PA, VA and NJ would dominate the Federal government at the expense of the less populous, more agicultural states.

Forgive me if there's something I'm totally missing. I haven't taken Government class yet.It's inexcusable if you're beyond the fifth grade. You should have had that much in your elementary school's history class.

History, good sir. The answer lies in history.

Essentially: The federal scheme is supposed to be weak; the states are supposed to be the primary governance and the fed a moderator between them. Look at older documents in the United States; before the Civil War, a phrase common in federal documents is "the several states", meaning the states of the Union. To describe those states in toto, one described them as "these United States". What many Americans perceive of the European Union is a workable comparison: several independent political entities consenting to certain common rules.

Theoretically, it is asserted that the United States did wrong in preventing the secession of the Confederacy; even Lord Acton, an intellectual luminary of his time, is known to have supported the Confederacy on that principle.

And while political writers and officers since the Civil War have used such phrases, they have fallen out of vogue while we wait for the South to rise again. (Now that South Carolina is "middle America", we see what that rise brings--warfare and bigotry and betrayal of principle--but that's another story.)

I'm 31, and I grew up learning the phrase, "the United States". My father doesn't remember much about "these United States", except that the phrase was in his history lessons somewhere. The Equal Protection Clause is often looked upon as a nail in the coffin of states' rights. Not that any conservative will tell you that in coherent, useful terms, but where the constitution conflicts between the guarantee of the Republic and the guarantee of equal protection, the courts usually side with equal protection: we are not fifty societies; we are one.

E pluribus unum: of the many, one.

The Republic is in place as a bulwark against the "tyranny of democracy". Were this nation truly democratic, we'd probably still have slaves. And think of what that would have done to the women's vote, or to their place in the workforce during and after World War II.

So much for having a motto from a salad recipe, eh?

The relationship between state and federal laws can get complex; on the one hand is states' rights. To the other, though, is the Constitution itself. And what many fail to realize is how (A) predictable, and (B) intentional that standoff is. It's a scale reflection of anarchism, so to speak: individuals coming together with cooperative intent must compromise between themselves. They must, in effect, give over part of their individuality (e.g. part of their freedom) to the cooperative effort.

The basic principle is that in order for a society to exist in which people are free to do as they choose, a society must exist in the first place. This forces the exchange of certain freedoms for security. I don't have an army of my own. I wouldn't want the distraction of running one. Society is stronger if not everyone is running around pursuing "criminals" of their own identification: the necessities and luxuries of law enforcement have been claimed in history by tyrants, and given over by people to governments. Remember that government is, essentially, coercion. And people cannot give over to a government the power to coerce anything that isn't the people's to begin with. The historical assertion, by Lysander Spooner: "(It) is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals". That point itself is not a political ideology, but an observation of fact and consequence of nature.

Where people draw the line, where they strike that balance between the freedom society provides and the limits society demands, seems to be the stuff of political argument. And why should it not be the business of the people?

As to the electoral college itself, it keeps voters' hands off the produce of the federal government. Stop and think for a moment.

Maybe in school one year, we vote as members of the "Student Body" for demonstrative officers whose job it is to spend three years planning a party, and to read morning announcements over the intercom. Maybe we voted for pizza and not burgers as members of a church youth group on an overnight retreat, or as members of a Pee Wee or Little League team after the game. One day we were old enough to vote in political elections. And on that day we voted as residents of our town, citizens of our county, and also residents of our state.

And ne'er again do we get a higher vote, lest we win political office.

When you vote for your U.S. Congressional delegation, you're voting by your state label. Washingtonian, Oregonian, Californian, Texan, New Yorker, &c. When you vote for U.S. President, you're voting by that same state label. You're not voting for a president. The simplest explanation is that you're instructing your state's representatives to the college how to vote. What actually happens, it seems, is that you actually vote between (x) slates of delegates, who will then go to the college and vote according to their agenda. In some states at least, different people report to the college depending on the outcome.

The federal government, then, despite Abraham Lincoln's stirring words, really is a government intended for institutions, namely the states. Look at the outline of the Constitution itself:

I. Legislative Branch
II. Presidency
III. Judiciary
IV. States
V. Amendment Process
VI. Legal Status of Constitution
VII. Ratification

All the Constitution does is empower the government.

Anyone notice anything missing? Anyone? Anyone?

The first ten amendments, collectively known as the "Bill of Rights", addresses that absence. "The People", as in those claimed in the Preamble, are completely absent from the actual constitution. The first four parts of the Constitution explain how things work and who can or cannot do what. The next three are procedural related to the first four. The first ten amendments, especially, are intended to further define the relationships of the government empowered.

This construction was intentional.

The purpose of the two layers essentially becomes keeping the people out of the direct circle of power. The gay fray is a perfect example of why: the tyranny of democracy is no freedom at all. In history, we might ask Anne Hutchinson.
____________________

Notes:

Legal Information Institute. "U.S. Constitution". See http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html

Spooner, Lysander. "Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty". See http://lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

Junto Society. "Maryland Tolerance Act of 1649". See http://www.juntosociety.com/i_documents/mta1649.html

Swarthmore University. "Trial and Interrogation of Anne Hutchinson". See http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/30-hut.html

First, why do we have a government system where there are federal laws, which govern the entire nation, and state laws, which only govern their respective state? What is the point to that?
States all have different opinions on things. It is necessary to give each state some degree of sovereignty because of the different cultures in different places. However, everyone in a country has to follow the laws of that country.

Second, why do we do the electoral college when we vote for our President? Doesn't it make more sense to just have a purely popular vote? I think that more truly represents the nation's choice.
It is rather complicated. It has many reasons (most of which I can't remember from when I did take a government class). It prevents the really big cities from overpowering the rural areas. It makes everyones vote count, not just New York City.