> This approach creates a more unified country because people are able to make their own decisions and live with them.
I don't know why you would assume that: There's a whole host of tensions that come with decisions made at the state level. Reciprocity is a huge one that comes up semi-frequently (for example with firearm laws).
> People are able to move within the country to states with policies more in line with their own views.
"Just move" is an ok answer if your beef is, say, with Oregon's gas pumping laws.
It's a really awful answer if your problem is that your state allows "separate but equal" bathrooms for black people. Those suffering at the hands of those extreme policies are also the least likely to have the means to move.
> States have to have balanced budgets
I don't know why you think that. State budget crises aren't unknown or even all that uncommon.
> There's a push in this country lately to do everything at a Federal level though
Because for most of the history of the United States, human rights issues have only been resolved at the federal level. Slavery, segregation, women's suffrage, and same-sex marriage have all been framed as "States Rights" issues.
> This approach creates a more unified country because people are able to make their own decisions and live with them.
>>I don't know why you would assume that: There's a whole host of tensions that come with decisions made at the state level. Reciprocity is a huge one that comes up semi-frequently (for example with firearm laws).
There are and those get to be negotiated and worked out. The tensions arise, such as with firearms laws, because states don't see eye to eye on those issues so they get to dictate exactly how things work in their own states. That is entirely the point. Firearm laws are a great example because just because I might wish your state did things differently...it's not my state and therefore I don't really get a vote.
> People are able to move within the country to states with policies more in line with their own views.
>>"Just move" is an ok answer if your beef is, say, with Oregon's gas pumping laws.
"Just move" becomes a much more difficult proposition when your beef is with the entire country. I have neighbors who moved their kids out of Colorado as soon as marijuana was legalized. That was a choice they were able to make with a policy they disagreed with.
>>It's a really awful answer if your problem is that your state allows "separate but equal" bathrooms for black people. Those suffering at the hands of those extreme policies are also the least likely to have the means to move.
The extreme example counter response is never far behind in political discourse. Civil rights / human rights issues are a different ballgame and those absolutely are things that need to be resolved at the federal level. There's a whole host of other policies that don't though.
> States have to have balanced budgets
>>I don't know why you think that. State budget crises aren't unknown or even all that uncommon.
They are crises because they have to be balanced. That is the point. If your state's budget doesn't work there are furloughs, layoffs and immediate budget cuts to balance it. At the Federal level that doesn't happen unless Congress fails to pass ANY budget regardless of whether it's balanced.
> There's a push in this country lately to do everything at a Federal level though
>>Because for most of the history of the United States, human rights issues have only been resolved at the federal level. Slavery, segregation, women's suffrage, and same-sex marriage have all been framed as "States Rights" issues.
Again, above answer applies. Those ARE the issues that are Federal issues. There's a wide gap between those issues and virtually every other policy in the country being effected by a broad reading of the interstate commerce clause.
"The extreme example counter response is never far behind in political discourse. Civil rights / human rights issues are a different ballgame and those absolutely are things that need to be resolved at the federal level. There's a whole host of other policies that don't though."
The problem isn't whether you allow some things to be decided at the state level and some things to be decided at the federal level. The problem is this: WHO gets to decide what level is correct?
There's a very large portion of the US that feels that voting rights issues should be decided at the state level. Same with abortion rights. Same with firearm ownership/possession. Same with gay marriage (and reciprocity is a big one there). I'd lay odds that if not for that pesky meddling Federal Government there's at least one state with a legislature that would be willing to ban miscegenation again, and refuse to recognize marriages that wouldn't be legal in their state.
> The tensions arise, such as with firearms laws, because states don't see eye to eye on those issues so they get to dictate exactly how things work in their own states
That causes some AWFUL problems for people traveling between states, which is incredibly common nowadays because of air travel.
Google for the myriad of really terrible stories involving people accidentally traveling to New Jersey with a firearm. In at least a few cases they were forced to travel to New Jersey because of an airline mistake (unexpected layovers, misplaced luggage, etc.). Reciprocity is a much bigger issue than you're making it out to be.
> The extreme example counter response is never far behind in political discourse.
"States Rights" almost always comes up as an argument in the context of human rights violations. I don't think it's too extreme to remind people of that.
> There's a whole host of other policies that don't though.
Where's that line get drawn? If I frame marijuana as a human rights issue (see: the racial discrepancies in conviction rates for drug offenses), does it become ok for the federal government to resolve then?
> They are crises because they have to be balanced.
Errr no? There are plenty of states that are "balanced" only because the federal government gives them copious amounts of money, well in excess of their GSP.
They're "balanced" but to call it anything other than artificially balanced is silly.
> There's a wide gap between those issues and virtually every other policy in the country being effected by a broad reading of the interstate commerce clause.
Those are the primary issues anti-federalists bring up when States' rights comes up as a discussion, both historically and currently (not slavery obviously, but same-sex marriage is an incredibly recent one).
If you're talking about things like the drinking age (which isn't even really a mandate, just an extreme carrot on a stick), then sure, whatever - but who cares? Those are trivial issues in comparison.
> Google for the myriad of really terrible stories involving people accidentally traveling to New Jersey with a firearm. In at least a few cases they were forced to travel to New Jersey because of an airline mistake (unexpected layovers, misplaced luggage, etc.). Reciprocity is a much bigger issue than you're making it out to be.
That's not about reciprocity so much as it is about NJSP thumbing their noses at FOPA (federal law since 1986) I think
Without quoting the whole thing I'll just reference.
Firearms/Jersey: That is true and it's one of the big reasons that if you are going to transport a firearm you have to know the laws. I'm not arguing that it doesn't have problems.
People disagree about things all the time. People argue about things. The way cities setup laws causes issues and confusion for people, especially travelers. It can be annoying but it's less annoying than having outside parties make those decisions for you without the local residents having a say in the matter.
States/Human Rights: Fair enough. I take no real issue with that outside of a branding/labeling political perspective.
Line: Honestly as often as possible. The line is supposed to be hard, difficult to overcome and argued to a point of undeniable certainty before the Supreme Court or to the point that it gets past both houses of congress AND the president. If something can't be argued convincingly enough to pull that off, it's left up to the states. Framing anything as a human rights issue would depend on backing up an almost total lack of demographic free will in order to do so. That's why a lot of Indian reservations are dry though. The native american population doesn't handle alcohol well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans). Doesn't mean the whole country shouldn't have it, but it makes complete sense for them to want to ban it locally.
Balance: Federal programs that create an exercise of redistribution are out of the hands of state budget control but the funds are still limited, budgeted and when the money runs out somebody is still left holding the bag.
Issues/Gap: There's a number of issues that go well beyond the drinking age and it usually has to do with aiming a federal monetary firehose at an industry with no regard for the after effects. The Farm Bill is a great example of this because of the disruption that it caused globally and played a huge part in Mexico's farming industry struggles, which had cascade effects eventually helping us get to the immigration issue we have today.
Others revolve around tax policies around businesses and the lack of understanding of how money flows in different areas. Tax policies are huge, especially when talking about business tax policies because the big guys who everybody envisions when talking about taxing the 1% or forcing businesses to provide benefit X can actually afford it. The smaller businesses caught in the middle are the ones that can't and they are your eventual potential competitors. Small businesses employ 2/3 of the people in this country and every tax increase hits them harder than anybody else because most of them are 1 or 2 bad months from going under completely.
We can look at how we got to the medical issues we have today, when the federal government incentivized businesses to provide health insurance and never gave citizens the same ability to simply pay for it directly pretax. That removed insurance from the consumer market and was the first big step in creating the cluster that led to needing an overhaul.
We can look anywhere from student loans and education prices in conjunction with national campaigns that made it undesirable to just learn a trade rather than getting a degree...ANY degree regardless of its ability to help you earn a living. Increase demand, create money out of thin air to pay for it and wonder why prices keep out pacing inflation...
Let's not forget military spending while we're on the subject.
We can look at housing prices and the issues on both sides of the federal isle that led up to creating that debacle.
These are not trivial issues. They are massive economic disruptions that happen when a federal financial firehose is aimed at a problem and they always have consequences.
Right now the TPP is squeaking its way through the system with barely a blip on the radar. That legislation is scary but all anybody on my Facebook feed cares about right now is rainbows and confederate flags - the issues that let people for one reason or another feel better about themselves.
The issues that have serious consequences that involve math, numbers and logical exposition of the worst case scenarios in trade agreements...those are boring. Those are federal. Those are out of reach and we don't immediately FEEL how those affect us. We'll deal with that when we have to.
Just like credit card debt.
Just like the 30 year mortgage that will result in paying more than double the price of the house but we could fit it in the cash flow.
Just like the degree with zero job prospects that we just took on $50,000 worth of debt to get.
Just like how we really stuck it to those greedy businesses owners to get them to give us stuff that we assume they can afford...because after all they own a business and by default, that makes them rich.
Sorry but the Republic does not enshrine states' rights nearly as much as you say. One policy I have problem with is the open alcohol container policy that is nominally at the state level but is actually at the federal level enforced by the federal highway funding.
There are a lot of fundamental issues that we need to address at a federal level. I don't think it is decided that a strong central government causes a break down in the union of states.
Off-topic: I blew a zero in three different breathalyzers. Who comes up with idiotic rules like if you have an open container in the vehicle (that I never touched) I am automatically guilty of drunk driving?
It is the 10th amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.
"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."
I'm aware of the Supreme Court interpretation of it but there are also a number of people who contest that particular interpretation, as people do on multiple Supreme Court rulings.
Totally agree with you on the highway funding thing. That's basically the tax equivalent of taking your wallet and then telling you what you have to do to get it back. It was one of the earliest recent examples of a Federal power grab and if I'm not mistake that was actually Reagan.
I don't know why you would assume that: There's a whole host of tensions that come with decisions made at the state level. Reciprocity is a huge one that comes up semi-frequently (for example with firearm laws).
> People are able to move within the country to states with policies more in line with their own views.
"Just move" is an ok answer if your beef is, say, with Oregon's gas pumping laws.
It's a really awful answer if your problem is that your state allows "separate but equal" bathrooms for black people. Those suffering at the hands of those extreme policies are also the least likely to have the means to move.
> States have to have balanced budgets
I don't know why you think that. State budget crises aren't unknown or even all that uncommon.
> There's a push in this country lately to do everything at a Federal level though
Because for most of the history of the United States, human rights issues have only been resolved at the federal level. Slavery, segregation, women's suffrage, and same-sex marriage have all been framed as "States Rights" issues.