Are State Rights Obsolete?

[Balerion]

I probably could be accused of framing the question poorly, but I really think of another way to put it succinctly. Let me try again, now that I have some more room to work with.

I was just reading the latest post in the Trayvon Martin thread, and it got me to thinking about how some states have vastly different laws regarding very important issues, which of course brought me to the wildly varying education programs from state to state. Given how quickly our world is shrinking, I wondered if perhaps the rights of each state to call its own shots in so many important ways is contributing to our decline, especially in the sciences.

I don't really know a lot about this stuff, so I don't know if total federalization is even possible, but even if it isn't, do you think it would be beneficial to have the United States acting as one?

[Buddha12]

I think that many of the Federal laws come from states to begin with. Each state should and still does have the right to govern as they see it should be done to a certain degree. That's the way it should stay for then we have ways of seeing how certain laws that states enact actually affect their citizens and if those laws are wrong they are then appealed. If the Federal government would be the only one to administer laws then who would be able to appeal them if they are either bad or poorly formed in some way?

[Cavalier]

The States having their own laws is an important check on federal power. The federal government cannot freely legislate on issues like murder and tort law (unless they can position the law they'd like under one of the enumerated powers) precisely because the Constitution envisions a system where most day-to-day matters are handled by local laws.

If the federal government were to pass a federal murder statute, opassed a law requiring local police to fine litterers (or jaywalkers), and tried to make those binding on the States, the courts would strike it down. If the feds want to enact a particular policy in those sorts of areas, they need to work with the States to make that happen (like making the legal drinking age 21, though I am not sure why the feds took that issue under their wing).

Partitioning authority among different sovereigns helps to ensure no sovereign gains too much power, and that they are always watching one another. The States sue the feds over the individual mandate, and the feds weigh in against the Arizona law requiring people to produce proof of legal residency when stopped.

Besides that, some people want to live in places like Florida, with laws more favorable to those claiming self-defense. Others prefer laws that are less lenient in that area. There is no reason to think there is one "best" set of laws for everyone in that regard. The law in Detroit need not be the same as the law in Boise. So people can choose to vote with their feet, if they feel strongly.

[Balerion]

The States having their own laws is an important check on federal power. The federal government cannot freely legislate on issues like murder and tort law (unless they can position the law they'd like under one of the enumerated powers) precisely because the Constitution envisions a system where most day-to-day matters are handled by local laws.

But that doesn't seem to jibe with the Constitution's Supremacy clause, which says that federal laws have priority over state laws, even when they conflict. I mean, I understand that the federal government doesn't legislate many day-to-day laws, but they do in some cases. At any rate, that's not the point of my question.

If the federal government were to pass a federal murder statute, opassed a law requiring local police to fine litterers (or jaywalkers), and tried to make those binding on the States, the courts would strike it down. If the feds want to enact a particular policy in those sorts of areas, they need to work with the States to make that happen (like making the legal drinking age 21, though I am not sure why the feds took that issue under their wing).

In the case you mention, it isn't so much that the federal government worked with the states as they threatened to punish them for not abiding the mandate. Just a quick check of Wikipedia shows that states are technically allowed to lower their drinking age, but they would see a significant decrease in highway funding. So the federal government very much could force laws upon the states through similar means if it so chose to. But again, this isn't my question. My question is, would it not be beneficial to the country if we were all on the same page?

I suppose this doesn't even have to be a question of state rights. Wouldn't it be better, then, if all of the states agreed upon a common set of laws and practices? If the curriculum were the same from school to school, from county to county, from state to state?

Partitioning authority among different sovereigns helps to ensure no sovereign gains too much power, and that they are always watching one another. The States sue the feds over the individual mandate, and the feds weigh in against the Arizona law requiring people to produce proof of legal residency when stopped.

I don't really see that as a system of checks and balances, though. If state law and federal law contradict, then federal law wins. If the federal government attempts to overstep its bounds, then we're not talking about it trying to become "too powerful," we're talking about it overreaching its predetermined limits. There's nothing inherently "bad" about it, except that it violates the Constitution. This isn't the same as the judiciary serving as a check for the executive branch, in other words.

Besides that, some people want to live in places like Florida, with laws more favorable to those claiming self-defense. Others prefer laws that are less lenient in that area. There is no reason to think there is one "best" set of laws for everyone in that regard. The law in Detroit need not be the same as the law in Boise. So people can choose to vote with their feet, if they feel strongly.

I would disagree that there aren't standards of law that are better than others. The Zimmerman case is a great example of how fundamentally flawed a law can be. What some people prefer isn't necessarily relevant. But let's leave aside criminal law for a second, and focus on education. At least in that respect, don't you think it would be beneficial for the country if there was a status quo instead of each district deciding what it teaches and what it doesn't teach?

[Cavalier]

But that doesn't seem to jibe with the Constitution's Supremacy clause, which says that federal laws have priority over state laws, even when they conflict. I mean, I understand that the federal government doesn't legislate many day-to-day laws, but they do in some cases. At any rate, that's not the point of my question.

It does. Where (constitutional) federal and state laws conflict, federal law controls, but federal law has to fit within the enumerated powers. If a federal law does not, then it is unconstitutional and the states can ignore it (assuming a court agrees with them, but state courts can strike down federal law too, it's just less common). (All those courts must defer to the U.S. supreme court on matters of federal law though.)

In the case you mention, it isn't so much that the federal government worked with the states as they threatened to punish them for not abiding the mandate. Just a quick check of Wikipedia shows that states are technically allowed to lower their drinking age, but they would see a significant decrease in highway funding. So the federal government very much could force laws upon the states through similar means if it so chose to.

If I agree to pay you $20, and I do so every day fr a week...then I say, well, I'll pay you the $20, but only if you take out the trash: How am I "punishing" you. The federal government has highway funds that it gives to the states. There are conditions attached, but that doesn't make the conditions a "punishment." My employer only pays me because I show up and do my work, that's not a punishment, it's an agreement between my employer and me.

But again, this isn't my question. My question is, would it not be beneficial to the country if we were all on the same page?

Again, I'd say no. (A) The states passing different laws lets us see which ones work better. Then more states can adopt the better ones...it's called the "laboratory of democracy." (B) Local conditions might make it a good thing that laws are different. Again, you do not need the same restrictions on gun ownership in Detroit as you do in rural Louisiana. It's somewhat akin to asking "Wouldn't it be better if we had the same speed limit on every road?" No, it really wouldn't, because local conditions do make a difference in what makes for good policy. (C) As noted, if people feel strongly about a specific issue, they can choose to move to a State where the laws support them. I for one would not want to live in a place where people could freely use Schedule I and II drugs, but other people don't mind. I don't mind giving them that choice, but I'd prefer it if they were all far away from me when they did it.

I suppose this doesn't even have to be a question of state rights. Wouldn't it be better, then, if all of the states agreed upon a common set of laws and practices? If the curriculum were the same from school to school, from county to county, from state to state?

Sometimes it would be better,. and the States have the option of cooperating. Look at how the Uniform Commercial Code swept through the States, so that now we largely do have the same contract law (for the sale of goods) nationwide.

On the other hand, other practices vary locally and need to be responsive to local needs.

The flaw of central planning (the flaw that made the USSR such a nightmare even after Stalin was log gone), was that central planning is awful at responding to local differences and often central planners aren't even aware of the local issues that can make a one-size-fits-all policy a bad one in a particular location.

Think of rent control laws. Would the same rent control law that was in effect in NYC make sense in Utah? Market rents in Manhattan for a 600 sq. ft. roach infested dump is around $2,000/mo, whereas you can rent the best apartments there are for that amount in Utah (in most places, perhaps not the ski resorts), in fact you can rent reasonably nice homes for that amount in Salt Lake City.

I don't really see that as a system of checks and balances, though. If state law and federal law contradict, then federal law wins. If the federal government attempts to overstep its bounds, then we're not talking about it trying to become "too powerful," we're talking about it overreaching its predetermined limits. There's nothing inherently "bad" about it, except that it violates the Constitution. This isn't the same as the judiciary serving as a check for the executive branch, in other words.

The intent of the Constitution was to have a federal government that is supreme *within its limited powers* but with states that have plenary authority over almost everything. The states then police the boundary, with the aid of the court system.

I'm reminded of a quote by Hugo Black (Supreme Court Justice):

a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate State governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways.

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)

At least in that respect, don't you think it would be beneficial for the country if there was a status quo instead of each district deciding what it teaches and what it doesn't teach?

Why would there be? Do you really want to learn about the history of the settling of Montana? Because that gets taught in Montana, but not nationwide. I grew up in PA, and learned about how that state was formed and grew.

It might be the case that a national curriculum would be best, but I am not sure that such a national curriculum would be so good. For example, suppose we all wound up living under a regime that wanted to sneak in intelligent design into science. A national curriculum would almost certainly take a "abstinence-centered" approach to sex ed.

You can't possibly presume that the national curriculum would only contain elements that you agree with, and wouldn't you be unhappy with a national curriculum if it were set by the right wing conservatives that control about half of the school boards in America?

Plus, if the executive controls this function, then expect the Dept of Education to issue completely new standards every few years as new parties take control of the White House.

Our education system has problems, but I think your proposal would just change the nature of those problems...making what were local issues (like push back on contraceptive issues and evolution) and make them national problems.

[Balerion]

If I agree to pay you $20, and I do so every day fr a week...then I say, well, I'll pay you the $20, but only if you take out the trash: How am I "punishing" you. The federal government has highway funds that it gives to the states. There are conditions attached, but that doesn't make the conditions a "punishment." My employer only pays me because I show up and do my work, that's not a punishment, it's an agreement between my employer and me.

It's not an agreement, it's an ultimatum. They gave them a certain amount of money, and then told them that they'd cut it by 10% if they don't adopt a certain law. The states had no bargaining rights, they didn't get opt out and retain their money, they had to either raise the drinking age to 21 or lose money. How isn't that a punishment? But okay, assuming you have an issue with that word, you certainly can't act like it was a negotiated agreement between equals.

Again, I'd say no. (A) The states passing different laws lets us see which ones work better. Then more states can adopt the better ones...it's called the "laboratory of democracy." (B) Local conditions might make it a good thing that laws are different. Again, you do not need the same restrictions on gun ownership in Detroit as you do in rural Louisiana. It's somewhat akin to asking "Wouldn't it be better if we had the same speed limit on every road?" No, it really wouldn't, because local conditions do make a difference in what makes for good policy. (C) As noted, if people feel strongly about a specific issue, they can choose to move to a State where the laws support them. I for one would not want to live in a place where people could freely use Schedule I and II drugs, but other people don't mind. I don't mind giving them that choice, but I'd prefer it if they were all far away from me when they did it.

A) For example? And at any rate, there are something like 200 countries in the world. I'm sure most laws have multiple analogs globally.

B) I'm not necessarily arguing against condition-specific laws and codes. A 30 Mph speed limit on a six-lane highway doesn't make any sense. It defeats the purpose of a highway, in fact. But what would be wrong with putting a federal cap on highways depending on their size and traffic? If there were any benefit to it, what would be wrong with that? Just because Arkansas doesn't have as many fatal highway accidents as Alabama? How is that relevant?

C) "Love it or leave it" is completely irrelevant to the topic, and fails as rationale for why a state should be allowed to make its own laws.

Sometimes it would be better,. and the States have the option of cooperating. Look at how the Uniform Commercial Code swept through the States, so that now we largely do have the same contract law (for the sale of goods) nationwide.

On the other hand, other practices vary locally and need to be responsive to local needs.

The flaw of central planning (the flaw that made the USSR such a nightmare even after Stalin was log gone), was that central planning is awful at responding to local differences and often central planners aren't even aware of the local issues that can make a one-size-fits-all policy a bad one in a particular location.

Think of rent control laws. Would the same rent control law that was in effect in NYC make sense in Utah? Market rents in Manhattan for a 600 sq. ft. roach infested dump is around $2,000/mo, whereas you can rent the best apartments there are for that amount in Utah (in most places, perhaps not the ski resorts), in fact you can rent reasonably nice homes for that amount in Salt Lake City.

Fair enough, but so far we're only talking about nationally insignificant issues. I don't begrudge the state's right to decide on those matters. Frankly, the federal government doesn't have the capability of properly legislating those matters.

The intent of the Constitution was to have a federal government that is supreme *within its limited powers* but with states that have plenary authority over almost everything. The states then police the boundary, with the aid of the court system.

I'm reminded of a quote by Hugo Black (Supreme Court Justice):



Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)

I see what you're saying.

Why would there be? Do you really want to learn about the history of the settling of Montana? Because that gets taught in Montana, but not nationwide. I grew up in PA, and learned about how that state was formed and grew.

Okay, well that's another hole in my argument.

It might be the case that a national curriculum would be best, but I am not sure that such a national curriculum would be so good. For example, suppose we all wound up living under a regime that wanted to sneak in intelligent design into science. A national curriculum would almost certainly take a "abstinence-centered" approach to sex ed.

You can't possibly presume that the national curriculum would only contain elements that you agree with, and wouldn't you be unhappy with a national curriculum if it were set by the right wing conservatives that control about half of the school boards in America?

Plus, if the executive controls this function, then expect the Dept of Education to issue completely new standards every few years as new parties take control of the White House.

Our education system has problems, but I think your proposal would just change the nature of those problems...making what were local issues (like push back on contraceptive issues and evolution) and make them national problems.

I see. I had thought that a national system would eliminate the issues we have in Indiana and Alabama, and never considered that it could actually exacerbate the problem. And then there's the issue of maintenance. Good points, all. Thanks for the talk!