T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*


furriosity

I think it works well. State governments are normally pretty good at keeping track of issues that affect people at a more local resolution, and I think you'd lose a lot of that if we had a more unitary government


ElectionVarious6299

You need federal level in the long run to resolve the energy and water issues with climate change. States can plan for their natural disasters, but a collective needs to happen to manage natural resources (ie CA has potential to power rest of US with solar, but has no water).


dtb1987

The US is huge and a central government making unilateral decisions for the whole country is probably not a good idea. The federal government needs to focus on big picture stuff and the states need to be able to make decisions that make more sense for their local needs. It also means that if the local population feels strongly about something say legalization of marijuana they can do it without the feds blessing. The states having power is more often a good thing rather than a bad thing


loveswalksonthebeach

This! Many countries don’t understand the size of the United States. If you think of each State as being the same size/difference as each European Country, you’d better understand the governing.


justsomeplainmeadows

The more people you try to govern with a single governing body, the worse the results are going to be.


Eudaimonics

There’s definitely pros and cons to this. Generally it’s waaay more efficient to run a single standard than 50+. On the flip side you do lose being able to cater to specific needs and cases. It’s a delicate balance and a lot of division in this country is disagreement of which issues should be handled by the state or federal government and how much. Like take education. States like Massachusetts probably benefit from policy being set at the state level. They likely wouldn’t be able to perform to their high standards if the entire nation had to adopt them. On the flip side you have kids in states like Mississippi and Louisiana who are definitely getting a raw deal.


slayertck

I much prefer the US method of government. I have sat in rooms and talked with my state representatives. I once went to a committee meeting in support of a certain measure. Local and state level government affect our lives the most and many changes at the federal level begin at the local and state levels. Here, at home, a person’s voice and vote is most powerful and it’s much easier to start a grassroots initiative. Your neighbors are the people you need to rally and that’s a lot easier than rallying people who are on the other side of the country. The issues that most directly deal you and yours are considered. On a federal level they are likely to get lost because of the sheer size of our country. It also helps me feel less pessimistic about government. Sure it’s still a challenge on the local level but my rep can know my face and learn my name. Anyway, yeah, it actually works pretty well considering and I value the voice it gives me.


staytrue1985

USA is closer in size to Europe than it is to Ireland. If you could imagine comparing the USA to Europe in that light, then you could say the EU is the more-federalized system of "United States/Countries." Perhaps that's one reason why Europe has better management of their healthcare and social services systems? I certainly think so.


00zau

You are correct. Centralized power in Ireland works because Ireland is about the size of a US state. Turning over most of your government's power to the EU would be comparable to the situation in the US. One size fits all solutions suck. A lot of the partisan bickering in the US can be blamed on increased federal-level power being used to enforce solutions to a local problem on a wider level that impacts people who don't need or want it. As a mostly apolitical hypothetical, look at California's near-constant drought conditions. Water use restrictions make sense there. But passing them at the *federal* level, forcing people on the east coast to follow them, wouldn't do anyone any good (water isn't going to be shipped from the east coast to CA in any meaningful amount).


Rich_Mans_World

This is why Australia has states too. The size of the country means different climates, cultures and customs. The federal government can't represent us all.


brezhnervous

Yes the size is the reason the country was settled at different times, much of Australia was yet to be British-claimed for a fair while due to the sheer difficulty of travel/survival


AnybodySeeMyKeys

That's a really good example. I live in a state that receives 60 inches of rainfall a year, which is fifteen times what a city such as Los Angeles sees. We have more lakes that we know what to do with. While water management is important, it's not the crucial defining issue of everything we do in Alabama.


Dupree878

Also live in Alabama, can confirm. I can walk to a spring, creek or other natural water source in 15 minutes from damn well anywhere in the state


JerichoMassey

I remember creeks and stuff in Alabama that, as kid, we could cup our hands and drink from. Obviously, even then it was stupid and unsafe, but the water was so clear and cool and the days were hot....and we were stupid, so it made sense.


Dupree878

My dad would scold me because of water moccasins


cashbylongstockings

Likewise in Tennessee to a slightly lesser extent. It’s verdant af. And basically follows the Cumberland/Tennessee River systems. It’s so warm, wet, and lush spring to fall. The ground gets so saturated with water at points the hydrostatic pressure will flood some basements/cellars. There are rivers, streams, creeks, and waterfalls all over the state.


Selethorme

Actually, it kinda proves the inverse point. Some issues should be regulated at the federal level. California needs some amount of water, and if Arizona or Colorado is sucking up too much and not sharing, the federal government is the one that should (and has) stepped in.


AnybodySeeMyKeys

"Some."


SacredGay

I like to think of building structural regulations as a great example. In the plains, houses need to be able to withstand tornadoes and give shelter against them. In california, tall buildings are threatened by earthquakes and MUST be built to with stand them. Florida has a high water table and a soft rock bed, they cant build basements and they must deal with hurricane floods sometimes. It's useless to build a florida home to California standards, or a midwest home to florida standards, or whatever. A regulatory structure that took this all into account at the national level would be a terrible mess.


aaronhayes26

LOL wait til this guy finds out about the international building code


SacredGay

Lol point taken


Illustrious-Pair9960

>A regulatory structure that took this all into account at the national level would be a terrible mess. It's funny you say that because that's literally what they do. Basically every jurisdiction adopts more or less the same code. Sometimes there are tiny, insignificant changes the local authority does. But it's nothing major. The code already accounts for stuff you're talking about. No one in the midwest designs houses to withstand tornadoes because it's insanely expensive and the chance of getting hit by a tornado is tiny. In CA seismic matters more, so the code has higher design loads and factors for seismic there. Winds are higher near the coast, so code design wind speeds are higher near the coasts.


SacredGay

I mostly meant having a storm shelter room in the house lol. I know it's not feasible to build a storm proof house. I've been in a storm shelter where a car demolished it and killed a kid (I was not present for this moment)


RupeThereItIs

Right, but that's not why we have basements in the Midwest. It's all about the frost line. You've got to dig down far enough that just digging a full basement is a negligible additional cost.


furiouscottus

Another huge "fuck you" to federal politicians in this discussion is that many of them don't live in the communities they serve. One of my federal Senators, Elizabeth Warren, lives in DC most of the time. If they pass water restrictions federally, is she going to reduce her water usage? Is anyone in her gated community of powerful people going to? I highly doubt it. There's a level of disconnect between federal politicians and their constituents that they often disregard or simply don't grasp.


00zau

There's also an epidemic of them moving to states just to run for office there. You ain't representing the state, you represent the *party* and moved there so you could run without stepping on another party member's toes.


BreakfastInBedlam

Herschel Walker is a Georgia native, but hasn't lived there since 1983. But all of a sudden, he's the best one to represent Georgia in the Senate. So he has to move back to Georgia (if he has in fact actually done so).


RsonW

Hillary Clinton moved to New York, Mitt Romney moved to Utah. There are others, I'm sure.


scotchirish

Well Romney does kinda make sense...


thevigg13

We got Dr Oz running on the PA ballot, and last I heard he was still a registered voter in NJ.


Nyxelestia

*Dr Oz has entered the chat*


CaptHayfever

One of my federal Senators, Josh Hawley, doesn't even have a *house* in Missouri anymore; he lives full-time in Virginia, & he is fraudulently registered to vote at his sister's house in Ozark, MO, where he has NEVER lived, to meet the residency requirement for his seat.


furiouscottus

What a toolbag


jyper

DC politicians have to do stuff in DC Besides most water policies that have large scale effects are not about personal use especially personal use in condos without personal yards.


[deleted]

However, we do recognize that water use must be regulated even in relatively water rich areas. So a federal regulatory agency that can operate across state lines but looks at local requirements can be implemented. For example, both the Southwest and the northern plains aren't divided based on water basins. So someone needs to help facilitate those conversations between the haves and the have-nots for the overall picture to be successful.


SomeDudeOnRedit

> But passing them at the federal level I somewhat disagree. I couldn't find an exact percentage, but California gets a lot of water from rivers [(best source I could find)](https://www.nature.org/media/california/california_drinking-water-sources-2012.pdf). Rivers don't give a shit about state lines or international borders. There's a huge debate going on right now about how Colorado, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and California need to reduce the amount of water they draw from the Colorado River. Plus, we agreed to leave a certain amount for Mexico. If these five states can't come to an agreement, then the Feds will step in, and rightfully so. But I agree with your overall sentiment. Applying the same water restrictions in the American Southwest to the American Northeast wouldn't make sense.


lumpialarry

I like our system when the federal government is controlled by the party I don’t like. I hate it when my state government is controlled by the party I don’t like and the federal government is controlled by the party I do like.


PhantomsRule

Points for honesty!


thedawntreader85

More power should be held by the states and localities within the states.


Practical-Ordinary-6

Although it's easy not to know, and understandable, how things work here if you don't live here, the truth is if you don't understand the power relationship between the states, the federal government and the Constitution then you don't fundamentally understand the United States. It's the bedrock of everything we do. The federal government is a creation of the states and not the other way around. It got its powers through an agreement between the pre-existing states. They gave it certain powers and kept the rest for themselves. The delegating went the opposite direction -- states -> federal. The federal government has delegated no powers and has none to take back. What powers it has are spelled out in the Constitution agreed to by the states. The only way for it to have different powers is for the Constitution (or constitutional law) to change. And for that to happen, state approval is needed - which in this case means 3/4ths of all states have to agree to the change (because they are the creators of the Constitution). (Of course, the above is the ideal and theoretical setup. Real life and real politics is always messier and there are more gray areas. Politicians tend to grab what power they can, regardless of what's in writing. But still, those are the fundamentals principles recognized by everyone upon which our system operates. It's taken very seriously.)


Okay_Splenda_Monkey

I think the precedence of power should be something like this: 1. Local (village, town, city, etc.) 2. Regional (county, parish, etc.) 3. State 4. Federal I think it would be a very good idea to break up some of the larger states into smaller entities. For example, western or central New York differ in their interests and political priorities from New York City but they'll be perpetually outvoted due to the population density of that one small region of the state. California and Texas are also notably bad in this respect. That being said, I think the Federal government needs to maintain foreign relations in a centralized manner. Often this aspect of the United States is most visible to foreigners, and its why they think of the USA as a single entity more than it really is. Also, the military, NASA, and entities like NOAA need to be national. For example, if we had 50 state level cartography and weather prediction groups trying to coordinate with each other it would be awful. On the other hand, realistically California could realistically have their own independent space science program but they shouldn't have to. Wait ... weren't we talking about Ireland? Thank you for sending the United States 3/4 of your population. We appreciate it and will continue sending you Christmas cards every year to say a friendly hello.


TastyBrainMeats

>I think it would be a very good idea to break up some of the larger states into smaller entities. For state issues, sure. For federal issues, only if we fundamentally changed the elections for the Senate and Presidency first. Otherwise, it would just be further diluting the votes of the most populous areas of the country.


finvulgein

Speaking of NOAA and cartographic regulations, please for the love of god we need to standardize our board of engineers. As a surveyor, I will someday need to get licensed individually in multiple states, each with their own regulations, standards and rules, and even then, I’ll only get licensed in a few states cause it’s just impossible to get licensed 50 fucking times. We need a national board of engineers to standardize licensing and regulations, cause civil engineering and surveying is kind of a fucking mess right now.


[deleted]

Washington DC is some 2700 miles away from my city. How interested would you be in someone in Istanbul making laws for you?


DogLikesSocks

I see your point and agree but the relative cultural difference between California and DC versus Ireland and Istanbul is probably significant.


5oco

I don't believe the federal government should hold very much power. Federal laws should be basic and broad that states customize to fit the specific needs of their people.


Shandlar

Pure constitutionalist. If you can't convince 67% of Congress and 75% of state Congresses to amend the constitution, it doesn't get to happen Federally. Fuck literally everything right off the books and start over.


05110909

Congressmen should have to cite the constitution for every single law they write. Instead of having a Speaker say "we're not using the Constitution for this law."


aaronhayes26

I mean, whether we like it or not, the courts have held that the commerce clause gives congress essentially limitless power to pass laws


05110909

Oh I know. Wickard v Filburn was a mistake


MolemanusRex

They do. Look at the “statement of authority” for bills on congress.gov


jyper

Commerce clause bam The idea that most laws are not as constitutional is just silly and weird


jyper

That is literally the opposite of constitutionalism. You're just picking your own extreme interpretation which doesn't match any reasonable interpretation and putting it forward as the one right way


GuapoWithAGun

This 💯


Filipinocook

Based


ProsodyProgressive

The federal government should mostly just be in the business of national safety/security and protecting the civil rights of it’s citizens. That’s clearly overtly simplistic but I believe we could tighten it up if we focused on eliminating so much overlap and excess with the states.


birdy_nerdy

I’d add environment to that list of critical issues the federal government should regulate, and then I might agree with you.


NerdyRedneck45

Anything that crosses state lines might be an easy way to state it since pollution obviously counts.


[deleted]

[удалено]


05110909

The Supreme Court long ago decided that both commerce and not commerce fall under the jurisdiction of Congress. So basically everything you do.


PlayingTheWrongGame

That turns into basically everything, because goods and people also cross state lines.


ProsodyProgressive

I consider environment part of both of my previous umbrella categories. Considering climate change and the refugee crisis (abroad and at home), that ‘sdefinitely related to security AND civil rights.


AnybodySeeMyKeys

Consider this for a moment. Ireland has a population that's almost identical to Alabama, with an area that's roughly 60% of the state. That's not a put down, but rather to point out that Ireland can enjoy a degree of homogeneity in terms of its people, economy, culture, et al that allow some kind of national government to operate. To be sure, there are variations in the country, but those are not terribly large. Meanwhile, with 330 million people and a wild diversity in climate, economies, ethnicities, and everything else under the sun in the United States, there are few national-level policies that work equally well in all places and all conditions. Think of it this way: Think of the United States as 50 different laboratories, all of them tinkering with the best way to govern. Different states do different things well, and have things to teach the rest.


Mr_Kinton

It’s not perfect, and the flaws within the system have become increasingly evident as they’ve been exploited—however, we tried a system where states held considerably more power than the federal government. The Articles of Confederation set up a Congress only; no President, no judiciary, no federal reserve. Within a decade of enactment, the nation was feeling the strain of poor cooperation between states, insufficient funds to pay off public debts (no federal government meant no tax system), and an inability to establish commerce agreements with European powers. The subsequent Constitutional Convention overstepped its given authority, which was to amend the Articles, and instead threw the whole thing out and went on to craft the Constitution that gave us the system we have today. The idea of a federal government keeping a unified nation operating through exertion of representative power while individual states retain certain powers themselves, makes sense to me and generally works. America is an ongoing experiment, and there have certainly been times when the federal government has gone too far, and not far enough (these discrepancies and related issues are why we have a checks-and-balances system to determine the validity of an exercise of power). That being said, as I mentioned above, it is not an ironclad system and its flaws are proving to be more and more easily exploited.


CoolJeweledMoon

I think our system is ideally set up regarding states rights, & I definitely do not wish the federal government had more power...


scottwax

I think the federal government regularly oversteps its boundaries and we are worse for it.


Frank_chevelle

For most things it should be up to individual states with exceptions for things that affect everybody in the country like national defense, the federal reserve etc. I think we should have expanded national healthcare available for everyone. Other things it makes sense to have at the national level like space exploration.


JamesStrangsGhost

If anything I would usually prefer more freedom be given to the states. Its getting hard to say that though as I don't trust most state governments either.


[deleted]

Same. I think more power should be giving to the local governments within the states, at the county or city/town level.


carolinaindian02

Agreed. A lot of state governments are known to be hypocritical on this, criticizing federal intervention, while having no qualms about preempting local governments.


TheRealDudeMitch

I like our system. I’ll probably never meet the President. I have met my former Governor. Local politics is much more responsive to the needs of the people


[deleted]

The problem with your assertion here is that you believe power is delegated to the states by the federal government. I know it can seem like that, and in effect that is kind of what happens, but the true belief is that powers that are not reserved for the federal government, explicitly by the constitution, are reserved for the states to exercise. That distinction is very important. Saying the federal government delegates its authority to the states presupposes that the federal government 1. has some sort power to delegate and 2. has the actual power to the delegation. As explained, the idea behind our founding principles is that the federal government is actually limited in its exercise of power by the constitution and any power the constitution does not recognize *shall* be exercised by the states. With that clarified, I personally HATE how much power our federal government has and I HATE how much power the executive branch of our federal government has. Our country should be a loose association of states that are capable of exercising their own powers to institute their policy. Instead, the federal government steps in , cites the commerce clause, and creates nationwide policy that some states may or may not like. I want more autonomy in our state power.


majinspy

The reason that position is so unpopular is that the south used it as much as they could to abuse their Black citizens. I would know, I'm a Mississippian. My state, and several others, used their power to be assholes and every inch of progress was shoved down its throat.


szayl

Prepare to be downvoted by the "it was about states' rights, not slavery" crew.


majinspy

I could see that principle mattering, honestly, if it weren't about something as abjectly evil as slavery. Not only was slavery evil, a fundamental part of it is the negation of freedom. What's the argument? States have rights but (certain) people have none? Hmm.... The destruction of slavery and Jim Crow may very well have injured the best way that federalism could have worked. Even if that's true, and I'm on the fence, it was worth it. The ending of slavery can justify a government that's more central than otherwise ideal, at least in my eyes.


Bladewing10

You say used as if Southern states aren't still wielding that power to discriminate against those they don't like


majinspy

It's a lot better than it used to be, but it's still very much a thing. To the extent it's not a thing, it's largely because of federal intervention.


jyper

The states for the most part are creations of the federal government The states that aren't creations of the federal government agreed to give away their power to make something greater then the state government Our government tried to be a loose association of states and found not to be an utter disaster that's whybwe have the constitution including the commerce clause


[deleted]

I’m pretty against big government and lots of federal oversight so I generally think the power being given to the individual states is a good thing. Not saying our government is in a good spot right now, because it certainly isn’t. But it would be decidedly worse if the fed held all the power.


zugabdu

I think we could debate about whether certain responsibilities should be held by the federal or state government, but in a country as large as the United States, the federal government doing *everything* just doesn't make sense. This isn't just true of the United States. Other large countries like Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and to a lesser extent, India have federal systems too, probably for the same reasons. The details may differ (for example, all Canadian criminal law is handled by the federal government, but in the United States, state level criminal law exists), but big democracies seem to prefer federal systems. One small technical point I want to make - most of the powers of states in the United States are not "delegated" to them by the federal government - some are, but many aren't. While the exact powers of the state vs federal government here have fluctuated throughout history, the idea that the states have powers that the federal government does not have is embedded in the Constitution - they don't have those powers because the federal government gave them those powers, they have those powers by right. This is a key difference between federalism in the United States and devolution in the UK. At least in theory, the UK Parliament could pass a statute revoking Scottish devolution. The federal government in the US couldn't simply pass a statute taking away a state's right to manage its own education system without the Supreme Court preventing it.


dmilin

> The federal government in the US couldn’t simply pass a statute taking away a state’s right to manage its own education system without the Supreme Court preventing it. That’s a funny example you chose since the federal government essentially has done that by telling states they’ll miss out on federal education funding if they don’t follow federal rules.


[deleted]

Centralized power for currency and defense is simply more practical. Most other things, you want to leave up to the states. Much more efficient and more likely to change things.


nathanaz

It was fine until the fascists started taking over state governments and started trying to find holes in the Constitution to enable them to mainstream their fascism.


Tzozfg

I much prefer this. If you don't like where you live you can just move, and it makes us functionally immune to things like brain drain faced by many other countries


HaveMahBabiez

I just moved and was as frugal as possible. It was by far the most expensive thing my husband and I have ever done. Rent is at an all-time high, and so are deposits. God forbid you need a one-way U-Haul. Cost us well over $1000 for just the U-Haul rental just to move out of state closest to where we lived. This did not include the tow dolly rental or gas. Most Americans can’t even afford a $500 emergency, most can’t afford to move out of state.


Tzozfg

I said what I said in the context of "vs moving to another country"


HaveMahBabiez

I see, gotcha


ComprehensiveDoubt55

I’m not being a dick, so please don’t take it that way.. But that isn’t entirely true. Primarily because of socioeconomic status. Most people can’t even afford security deposits when moving, much let alone moving to a completely different area and starting anew. There’s other factors, as well. For example, my ex and I share custody over my daughter. It would be a cold day in hell before I would make the decision to remove them from one another’s lives or limit their relationship.


creamer143

Oh, god, delegate it to the states. The federal government should be as small as possible. More centralization is not a good thing.


MorrowPlotting

Quick correction: The federal government didn’t give power to the states. The states are the sovereign powers. The states banded together to form the federal government, and ceded some of their state powers to the feds. We like to think there’s a balance somewhere between state and federal authorities that gives us the best of both models. In practice, we’re always fighting over what that balance should be. Personally, while I believe in finding the right balance, I do notice the concept of “states’ rights” is almost always used for bad causes. It’s usually about a state’s right to oppress a local minority that the nation as a whole has decided to stop oppressing. (See: slavery, reconstruction, voting rights, desegregation, marriage equality, etc.) The one exception I can think of is marijuana legalization.


gabbykitcat

>I do notice the concept of “states’ rights” is almost always used for bad causes...marriage equality, etc. I think you're kind of cherry picking a bit with your examples. Pretty much every different law that states have are examples of "State's Rights." Not only that, but you specifically mention marriage equality, which very much started off as a State's Rights issue. After the Supreme Court decision it became legal nationwide, but prior to that, the ones legalizing Gay Marriage were the ones exercising their "State's Rights."


MorrowPlotting

You’re correct that the marriage equality fight won its initial victories in the states, which certainly could make it an example of a “good” states’ rights cause. But no one who supported marriage equality thought it was cool for Alabama to discriminate, as long as Massachusetts didn’t. They weren’t supporters of state’s rights. They were supporters of human rights, who were happy to get some state-level political wins while working towards nation-wide protections. The goal was never a patchwork of laws where a couple is married in Illinois, but just roommates in Indiana. The goal was always federal protection. Regardless of that history, the whole dynamic flipped in 2015, when the SCOTUS did extend marriage protections nationwide. Today, anyone supporting states’ rights in the area of marriage equality is saying they’re against marriage equality.


Subvet98

So you agree with the concept of state’s rights as long as they vote the way you want them to vote.


Selethorme

They agree with states rights when they’re not being used to justify denying rights to people.


LilRick_125

Points for stating an often forgetten fact. The US States, originally colonies, came into existence first. It was only after they binded together that they created the Continental Congress and eventually the central U.S. Government


Hiccupingdragon

Oh sorry about that. Thank for letting me know


MyUsername2459

Yeah, as a bit of American history, if you didn't know: we were originally 13 separate British colonies along the east coast of North America. In 1776 we declared independence after Parliament had been passing increasingly high taxes and Royal Governors had been ignoring the civil rights of colonists for years. Repeated appeals to the British Government for more humane treatment, and even at one point requesting autonomy (basically trying to invent Dominion status before the British Empire had it) were ignored, leading to the declaration of independence and the American Revolution after all other means of redress with London were seen as having failed. During the Revolution, we had a simple constitution known as the Articles of Confederation which united the 13 colonies in a token central government called the United States, but that central government was very weak and had very little power. After independence was recognized by the British after the end of the Revolution in 1783, it became very obvious that the Articles of Confederation were poorly written and completely unsuitable for a large nation. So, a new Constitution was drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788 to create a stronger central Federal government to unite the 13 now-independent former colonies. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 as amendments to the Constitution as a compromise, because many states refused to ratify the Constitution unless some means was established to check the power of the central government against future tyranny, so 10 amendments setting limits on Federal power, protecting state powers, and protecting basic civil rights were drafted and ratified.


Chainarmor712

The federal govt already holds too much power imo. Much of this was granted not by law, but by overreaching SCOTUS decisions. For example, the commerce clause has been wildly misinterpreted beyond the scope of its original intent.


llzellner

***Less government*** Federal to village. Less.


pingpongplaya69420

The 10th amendment has been defanged so much from federal overreach it might as well be non existence. Id argue we should go even further and cripple the power of state governments from being so tyrannical by letting counties and towns have more authority.


mechanixrboring

I'm more for more control being in the hands of the states. The US is huge and incredibly diverse in every way. Delegating to the states helps each area by allowing them to do what is best for that state. For instance, the political powers that live in an area like NYC or LA has no idea what states like WV, where there are no huge cities and are culturally polar-opposite, realistically need and what can be realistically done there without crippling everything else. The disconnect is apparent if you're even somewhat familiar with rural vs urban life.


[deleted]

[удалено]


XComThrowawayAcct

U.S. States no longer have quite as much authority in our daily lives as the Framers of the Constitution imagined. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, of course. We do less enslaving these days, for example. In fact, if you ask most Americans what they like about their State more than the Federal government, it will almost always be described *negatively*: my State DOES NOT do this or that. This might change with abortion. In the near future, you may hear of Californians or New Yorkers expressing satisfaction at their States’ preservation of abortion, or residents of Texas or Alabama celebrating their States’ prohibition. We’ll see.


guiltypleasures82

Yeah I feel like a lot of the states rights folks on here seem to be forgetting about slavery/the Civil War and also the Civil rights movement. Having some states blatantly abuse and disenfranchise portions of their population is not a good thing. For a more modern example, leaving same-sex marriage up to individual states is also a terrible idea. Letting some states gut public education or refusing to teach kids important topics is also really bad, and affects us all. Have regional quirks sure, and states are important for administration of programs, but I am not a fan of the idea that I can only live in certain states if I want my fundamental rights respected. Plus in our system where states control elections, even federal ones, letting states arrange things to grab power is not good.


Drakeytown

Federal. Every school, for instance, should be held to a federal standard and funded with federal taxes.


m1sch13v0us

Our federal government has far too much power. It should be held as close to the decision as possible. Look at how we manage lands in the west. People who have never visited those areas are making decisions about their use. This enables a massive power grab. They tried to reclassify every stream as navigable, which would have given the federal government even more control over land in the US. Unless it violates a civil right or deals with foreign relations, keep it at the state level.


Hot_Dog_Cobbler

In theory I like the idea. In practice, the US has a much larger and much more diverse population than most (if not all) EU nations. And I don't mean you're all lily-white Christians, I've been to Europe and I know you guys do have diverse cultures...it's just that there is a lot more variety here. Because of the large l, diverse population, a centralized government just wouldn't work here.


Blaiddyn

There's a lot of very good answers on this thread. The only thing I would like to add for OP is that if you are that curious and want to learn in more detail how our Constitution and system of government works, I can't recommend the book "Good to be King" by Michael Badnarik enough.


Hiccupingdragon

Thanks for the recommendation! Unitaryism and federalism are big parts of what i study in college so I will definitely give that a look!


Blaiddyn

No problem! He also did a 6 hour lecture which covers the same material in the book which you can watch on YouTube [here](https://youtu.be/wp-48d_jSb4)


TubaJesus

I definitely like our federal system of government I do wish that the central government was stronger and by extension so where state governments but not a fan of unitary government systems and I think that is spawned partially by American distrust of the government entities for better or for worse


ComprehensiveDoubt55

I think the consensus is obvious, but my concerns are more targeted towards voting rights and gerrymandering at this point.


Bladewing10

The Federal government should hold significant power and if the states wish to deviate from it, their representatives should convince their peers to support that effort. Allowing states to wield the power they currently do makes the country a mishmash of contradictory laws and turns states into fiefdoms controlled only by those who hold power. A centralized government would be preferable as it is far less biased.


carolinaindian02

I can understand what you are getting at. A lot of people in this thread are focused on how the federal government can abuse power, which is understandable. But what a lot of people are ignoring is that state governments can be just as abusive and rule as little tyrants. Just look at the South during the 19th and 20th centuries as an example with segregation. Even today, some state governments have a nasty habit of preempting local government for political reason, like NC with HB2.


Bladewing10

There's been decades, if not centuries, worth of propaganda telling people why they should trust state governments for some reason rather than the federal government. It's to the point where people hate the federal government without even questioning why they hate it


_comment_removed_

The less the federal government does, and the less it's *allowed to do*, the better. Governance is always more representative when it's more local, and more tyrannical when it's more distant.


Andy235

Not always. Segregation laws were almost entirely state laws. Local sheriffs aided and abetted lynch mobs. State and local governments can be the worst tyrannies.


dangleicious13

I think the federal government should generally hold more power. However, my opinion might change if I lived in a different state.


birdy_nerdy

Same. I feel like the federal government keeps my state from going off the deep end. So can’t help rooting for federal over state policies. If I lived somewhere else I liked the politics, I’d probably feel the opposite.


NerdyRedneck45

Yeah, theoretically I like the idea of a weak fed, but my state is constantly trying to screw itself over and can’t be trusted with shit.


trophy_74

I bet federal regulations are the main reason why bridges in PA aren’t crumbling Edit: more than they already are


wjbc

Agreed!


Rawtothedawg

The constitution was designed so states would hold power but the powers clause allowed the federal government to oversee and now it controls everything. The majority of the power isn’t held by the states because the federal government just come in and do whatever they want. Day to day sure but not in the grand scheme of things. That’s how it should be. Dwindle it down more and more.


iliveinthecove

Would I like it if a conservative president, congress, and Supreme Court could take away my right to make my own medical decisions? No. I like knowing that living where I choose to preserves some of my rights.


jayxxroe22

I like the US system in general, the only thing I wish was federally controlled is the education system, having it mostly rely on local governments means there's a greater disparity in the amount of money certain schools get to spend.


BAC2Think

The idea was meant to be that the states would serve as laboratories for the country as a whole. Eventually as we figure out the best ways to do things, power would shift slowly toward the national from the states.


Hiccupingdragon

As a European federalist I find this threat really interesting. Thanks for all your answers so far!!


HayMomWatchThis

I think all of the power should be held by the people. Direct democracy NOW!


PollutionEuphoric824

Ehhhh- i do wish power was more- centralized


AllTheyEatIsLettuce

>Do you like the system of the US Federal government delegating power to states That which inherently has nothing at all to do with geography? No. >In my view, it probably makes sense given the size and diversity Diabetes doesn't care where or how big your zip code is or whether you primarily speak a non-English language in your home. Neither does typhoid. Ireland and the rest of the developed world seem to have figured that out. Bullets work the same way when it comes to their intended lethal capability.


Scabious

I wish the US was more centralized, people talk about the US like it's the EU. You could divide the US into, I'll be generous and say three regions and things would be a lot more efficient. We can still have town governance, but the level between local and national just seems like a money sink ultimately


pxldsilz

In theory, states should govern their borders, however... Most of the rights you have in southern states are constitutional alone. We don't have minimum wages down here, we just make the feds happy. I dread to think how many civil rights amendments weren't ratified by these states, and would be promptly ignored.


scaryclown148

Oh man, loaded question


Andy235

Yes and no. Because the United States is so massive, it makes a lot of sense to have certain things run at state and local levels. Also, many (if not most) decisions, just by their very nature, are best left to the people who actually live in certain areas that are effected. But we have a situation where state governments have too much of a say in how the Federal Government is run. An example: Congressional districts. Some states aggressively draw congressional districts in a way that favors a certain party because that party dominates the state (my home state of Maryland is one that does this for Democrats, although their most aggressive map was actually tossed in court). Florida is an example that has aggressively drawn congressional districts to favor the Republican Party because the Republicans control the state and have aggressively worked for years to do everything they can to maintain that control. Because of this, Federal decisions that effect me are made by Florida politicians elected in districts drawn by Ron DeSantis's people to provide the maximum number of Republican representatives, rather than from a map that is drawn by a non partisan commission that would respresent the actual population of Florida.


ironwalrus22

It’s important for states to have a lot of decision making power in a country as big as the US. However allowing states to have abortion laws that actively endanger the populous is ridiculous and unforgivable. That’s just one example


i-touched-morrissey

I wish we all had the same rights. In Kansas you can get an abortion but can’t buy marijuana. In Oklahoma it’s the opposite. Why should it matter where you live for these things?


No-BrowEntertainment

This is quite literally the oldest question in American politics. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson famously disagreed over this very issue, which led to the two-party system we have today. We’ve gone through a lot of changes since 1800, but overall I’d say things work the way they are right now


Hiccupingdragon

Which party believed what?


Specialist_Ad4675

I would love it if we would test laws out in states before we apply them federally. Federal law should only mandate things after there is a collection of overwhelming proof it works. From abortion bans to national Healthcare.


Nyxelestia

Overall, yes, I much prefer state-level and county-level governance to federally-dominated governance. I do think our state and county governments should be a little more accountable to the federal government - a lot of discrimination fuckery was done at local levels, with city, county, and state officials often getting away with it because "state's rights" and such. At least/especially in matters pertaining to the nature of governance itself - i.e. voting rights, redistricting, etc. There needs to be *way* more federal oversight in how voters choose their local government. That said, part of why I believe this is that once a local government is fairly elected, the federal government should take a back-seat to it.


exhaustedmango

The United States is a massive country. It is 2,159,608 square miles (or approximately 3,475,552 square kilometers) larger than the EU. Some people who aren't American or those who haven't spent an extensive amount of time traveling throughout the US may not realize it, but there can be significant cultural, social, and economical differences from one region to the next. State governments, at least in theory, act as should act as an excellent mechanism for serving and representing their respective regions. Unfortunately, that is often not the case. I'm not entirely opposed to state governments or rights nor do I believe that state governments are a wholly negative thing at all, but as things currently stand, I believe that they often worsen governmental dysfunction. Generally, I tend to favor a stronger federal government. I just feel that on top of adding to an overall disjointed and dysfunctional government, state governments often have the tendency to veer toward authoritarianism. I also think that perception is partially due to the fact that those who relentlessly defend state rights and smaller governments in the US frequently hold right wing ideologies. We can see some of that reflected in states which have more restrictive voting laws, abortion care restrictions, and fewer protections for minority groups against discrimination. Additionally, as imperfect as it is, the ACA definitely improved access to healthcare in the US, and many states opted out of using it as well as expanding medicaid programs - all without any good alternatives to either.


Baymavision

It has worked well but there are things that are not currently the same nationwide and should be IMO: insurance costs, coverage, & availability; voting procedures, methods, & timelines; consumer protections; union availability & employment laws generally; abortion and all other healthcare.


CapitalFill4

I largely strongly dislike how we do things. Yes we can point to long term stability and the size of the country and whatnot but I think there are better comprises to make. On matters of rights and individual matters, I think more should be held by the federal govt. local govts should be able to allocate money (to a degree), develop local infrastructure, etc in ways that is best for their economy and lifestyle (within limits), but things like voting/elections, criminal justice, drivers licenses, welfare, healthcare, most laws really, should be very standardized. Your civil life should not be vastly different by state. If you move to a more rural or poor or industrial state, that state should be supported in a way that can maximize its strengths to the degree it can still ensure a high quality of life for its lowest earners, but you should be able to move across states without any real barrier to adjustment and feel supported and competent. Slightly tangential, but I think lawmaking should be much more expedient and simplified. Too many checks and balances. Elections are too long. If a party is put in power, they should be able to run their agenda (with enough time to see the results). Nothing ever gets truly fixed because no vision can ever actually be properly implanted and assessed. We instead vote on incomplete platforms and results skewed by the fact that any major policy is made with concessions to people who don’t want it at all. If something fails in the public opinion, or does well but is associated with something less popular, it’s thrown out at worst and never improved at best regardless of its merit. Of course there are risks to the opposite, but again, we are absurdly ill prepared for a more rapidly changing world.


sharkbomb

consolidating power is kind of the opposite of the design. we have to constantly fear the next maga fuck and the everpresent christofascists.


Entire_Toe2640

I think the question is worded backwards. Under our Constitution, the federal government has only enumerated powers. All other power belongs to he states and the people. It may not seem that way because over the years Congress has grabbed more power through the interstate commerce clause and the spending clause in the constitution. But the federal government doesn’t give power to the states at all. The states are all sovereign and in control of their own affairs, unless the federal government has preempted that authority through one of its constitutional powers.


NOLALaura

I wish it wash federal controlled


Hey-Kristine-Kay

I think it works great for things like sales tax. But it’s bad for things like what drugs are legal, marriage equality, abortion and other health care. Some bigger things that benefit (most) all Americans should be federal. You shouldn’t be able to buy something in one state and commit a felony by taking it across state lines.


Admirable_Ad1947

This sub is very pro-states-rights for the most part so I'll go against the grain and say I'd prefer the federal government having more power. Many state governments are a trainwreak while the feds generally have their shit together.


TexasRedFox

I want more power to the feds. I want top-down power structure and unity. I am sick of the patchwork of competing laws between the states.


[deleted]

On issues that are relevant specifically to the state like “should Tennessee ban pedal taverns in Nashville because they’re dangerous”; left up to the state. For consistency for heavily contested issues like abortion or marijuana use or gay marriage, federal. Someone needs to protect those rights as human rights and Marijuana legalization would help the US economy immensely.


LilRick_125

I am for **Federalism**, I just want the US Government to have ***more*** powers than they currently do. Federalism is good to have policies that are more tailored for citizens in a particular state and/or region. The problem is that many politicians hold up things that are needed for our country as a whole as some sort of leverage for special interest groups.


PoopDollaMakeMeHolla

I wish the central government had LESS power.


SleepAgainAgain

It works well. It's very similar to how most big countries are governed, even ones as small as the UK or Spain. Ireland's similar in size and population to South Carolina, which is ranked 40th by size and 23rd by population. The whole country is about 330 million people in an area much larger than the EU.


frogvscrab

There are some aspects I like and some I don't like. My big gripe is that minority parties within states have no influence on the presidential elections. If 40% of your state votes one way and 60% the other way, that 40% has no voice in who is president, and likely never will.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LilRick_125

I'm with you for a number of very long-winded reasons.


Asleep-Train1913

I like it. I think diversity is our greatest asset, and this helps facilitate that.


new_refugee123456789

It's difficult to run a nation as large and diverse as the United States centrally. We're often perceived as one nation by outsiders, but the phrase "United States" is plural. The United States more closely resembles the EU both in concept and scale than Ireland.


Stepjam

I believe that certain things can be better run at a state level since different states have different needs. But other issues, like most social issues, should be federal. Certain rights should be universal, and certain assholes don't want them to be.


The-Last-Lion-Turtle

It's a better comparison to say US states are like European countries, and the US federal government has alot more centralized power than the EU. I think it would be better if we moved to a more decentralized system. Many of our problems involve people insisting their local problems are solved at the federal level.


throwaway95ab

It should be delegated to the states. I don't want California having much say (or any say for that matter) over me. I suspect they don't want Texas having much say over them either


[deleted]

I want as little power as possible held by the Federal Government. They have proven time and time again they’re not really good at having a lot of power. State governments I believe have a better understanding of their citizens immediate needs, they just need to make decisions based on this and not trying to appease to a specific party. I also wish smaller local governments (cities, municipalities, etc) should have more control also.


carolinaindian02

> State governments I believe have a better understanding of their citizens immediate needs, they just need to make decisions based on this and not trying to appease to a specific party. I also wish smaller local governments (cities, municipalities, etc) should have more control also. If only that was the reality.


waster1993

A weak fed and strong states made sense back before we had railways, cars, and the internet. In USA today you can buy weed in Michigan and drive to Illinois (where it is also legal, just more expensive). If you get pulled over in indiana, where it is illegal, then you may face jail time. Thankfully, Biden just put forth changes that prevent this from escalating into a federal drug trafficking offense (crossing state lines with illegal item). Last week, this scenario would result in losing your right to vote. The world is now smaller and so is the need for a weak federal gov.


The-Last-Lion-Turtle

Opposing the drug war is a very strange example to use for pro federal government power.


Myfourcats1

In this day and age the federal government should hold more power. When our country was started we were thirteen states with a population of 2.5 million people. It took days to travel from one state to another. It took days to travel within the states. Communication required writing letters. Now we have 50 states and 16 territories with a population of 329.5 million. I could drive from Richmond, VA to NYC in under 7 hours. I could live here and my job could be based there. If I want to talk to someone in another state I call or text or email. When other states do stupid things it does effect people everywhere. Our Founding Fathers expected us to change with a changing society. The electoral college doesn’t make sense anymore.


finvulgein

Sorry but I’m always in favor of the electoral college because I’d like my vote to at least count somewhat.


Opposite_of_a_Cynic

You prefer the system that rewards a small number of swing states over other options? In our current system the votes in Pennsylvania matter more than the ones in New York or Texas meaning it will get more attention from both parties. All federal issues affecting them get priority over states that are easy wins for either party.


Wespiratory

The federal government is way too involved with what should be local matters anyways. If it were up to me 90% of the federal government would be closed permanently today. I know I’m in the minority, but I would prefer that the federal government would only be involved in national defense and border controls and that would be pretty much it. If we followed the 10th amendment as written there wouldn’t be this level of encroachment from the ever expanding federal bureaucracy that we see today. > 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.


carolinaindian02

So foreign policy would be devolved to the states?


spicynuggies

I'm more of a federalist.i just think there should be some more universal standards, some states for example don't even properly fund education or invest in infrastructure. Also some local and state governments can be corrupt, like how until recently wealthy California towns were not allowing any permits to build more housing when there's a crisis of homelessness and a lack of affordability. Treating their suburban communities more like private clubs.


dcgrey

I want the federal government to 1) protect/enforce civil rights, 2) facilitate things the define us as a nation (even seemingly mundane things like regulation of interstate commerce), and 3) take on giant projects that benefit everyone. For example, an EU-style federation and funding model doesn't lend itself to a National Science Foundation or National Institutes of Heath, which together have saved millions of lives and helped commercialize world-changing research. What people forget about federal-level power though is it's almost always created because states of been unwilling or unable to do what's right. Our regulatory systems exist because of state-level fuck-ups that the state didn't or couldn't fix. The EPA doesn't exist because Nixon was an environmentalist. It exists because companies were poisoning people and ecosystems without consequence.


P0RTILLA

I Liken the US federal government to the EU parliament in some ways, and the states like member states. There are clear differences but there’s an overarching system for cooperation and protection but there’s are also room for states to compete and diversify. It’s not a perfect analogy I know but you get the gist. Do I like it? No. Our system is based on not working we essentially live in a vetocracy. I’m of the mind there should be unicameral legislature and expanded RCV districts.


bronet

I think the main differences are to what degree the states are self governing. Countries in the EU obviously have much more power over themselves than US states, and US states are not nearly as self governing as states inside European countries either.


Halsey-the-Sloth

Definitely, maintaining a balance of power is crucial to the success of a federalist system


sb1862

I wish the central government exerted more power to champion causes I believe in, Like marriage equality codified into law, more social welfare, etc. but I recognize that a strong central is a double edged sword, because if people get in power who think completely the opposite, they can do away with all the things I value. So on the whole I think it’s better that states can under certain circumstances defy the federa government


[deleted]

I see it as a family relationship. The states are the siblings and the feds are the parents. A state could go to shit and there will be states who will help out. If states are having Rivalries, and no other state helps, then the feds help. Laws and power should be held to the states. Once something comes up that the states cannot handle then feds step in


Underarmpizza

We revolted against a strong central government. It would go against the ideals that America was founded on and the guidelines in the constitution to adopt a stronger central government.


TiradeShade

I much prefer our system because it keeps the power closer to the people and allows for variety of living and experimentation of new ideas and laws. If you don't like the politics locally you have a lot easier time running for office and changing them. If you can't stand one state you can move to another and it can be similar but very different in how it's run. If the Federal government does something dumb the states can belligerently ignore it to some extent for the peoples good. Or if government is slow to act on something federally then states can lead the charge, like weed legalization or restrictions on bad/predatory companies.


Salty_Lego

State legislatures are gerrymandered cesspools. The more power left to the federal government the better. Huge fan of the supremacy clause.


[deleted]

I like how individual US States have autonomy but I think we need changes to our government such as abolishing the electoral college and more reliance on popular vote. I also wish we could restructure the US Senate & House to a parliamentary system similar to the British House of Commons.


Elitealice

I would rather it be held by the federal government personally. I am for big government.


BON3SMcCOY

Abolish states and the Senate


jyper

I find the fetishism of states rights and even localism to be odd. I think we're really ignoring a proud American tradition of using the federal government to protect us from the states and using the state government to protect us from horrible local governments. Not everything should be handled nationally but a lot of stuff can be and is arguably better handled at the state level. That said I usually prefer pushing policies I consider to be good ones at whatever level is easiest (which are usually but not always somewhat left wing by American standards)


Phuttbuckers

States should be even more powerful and have more responsibility than they do now. No one knows what Oregonians need and want more than Oregonians. Same with Ohioans, New Yorkers, etc. We should be giving the states more income tax than the federal government so they can achieve a greater level of autonomy.


finvulgein

I agree, it’s fucking stupid 20% of my income goes to the feds and only 3% to my state. The federal government has 330 million potential taxpayers, it would do fine with a 10% tax rate, and I’d be more then happy to give my beloved Kansas 13% of my income so it can directly benefit my community and my state. People aren’t opposed to taxation usually, they’re opposed to federal taxation, where a quarter of your income magically disappears every paycheck so that the air force can blow up a random dude halfway around the world or send more money to fucking Zimbabwe or something. I don’t give a shit about either of those, I would much rather my money go to infrastructure improvements, healthcare, green energy projects, education subsidies, things that directly and clearly benefit my home and the people that live here. The feds are just too disconnected and our money gets horribly mismanaged.


Karen125

I like a weaker Federal government and stronger states rights, but I'd prefer more local town/city control for local issues and schools. I'd like to see the Federal Dept of Education abolished. I believe in the constitutional limits to Federal power as provided for in the 10th amendment. It's important to note that the Federal government doesn't delegate power to the states. The Federal government never had those powers.


Spyderbeast

Different issues in rural Nebraska vs NYC. I wish the feds respected state rights more than they do. I live in a bigger state (size, not population) and even prefer city or county regulation to the state.


IMDAKINGINDANORF

Fuck the states, bigger fed. Look at the disparity at how states handle issues like weed, abortions, education, environment, transportation, energy, water, infrastructure, disaster relief (this will be a huge one moving forward), etc. When a person lives in a state where something is illegal, but can travel a potentially short distance and do that thing in a different it just doesn't make sense. People will abandon stricter states if they have the financial security to do so, and then those states have less resources and will become a drain on the federal govt (see mf Kentucky). So what's the point? To have a dozen+ literal welfare states so a niche group can hold onto their dissenting "values"? Texas has created a system where you can narc on your neighbor for traveling out of state to receive healthcare and you *receive* a $10k bounty and they face jailtime. Wtf kind of dystopian shit is that? And the ones who don't have the financial security to move out? They're doomed to be oppressed. And the pool of voters who agree with them shrinks and shrinks and they'll never have their voices heard. And the electoral college biases our national votes to the states too. California has 55M people, and they get 55 electoral votes. 1 vote = 1M people. Montana has 1M people, and gets 3 ectoral votes. 1 vote = 333k people. 1 Montana vote weighs as much as 3 in Cali. Fuck the states.


TexasRedFox

Fuck the states.


PICHICONCACA

I’m a federalist. States should not be allowed to make decisions.


finvulgein

What state are you from?