Given that states rights aren't really a thing (see civil war) wouldn't the country be better served by an abolition of states and statehood and a standardization of laws and regulations? Or is the fiction of states rights useful enough to keep around? Ie Colorado and the weed legalization(recreational use) could not happen without the fiction of states rights, at least that's my understanding of it.
Well, for starters, in the Civil War, the nullifiers were the victors. The south seceded because the Federal Government was inconsistent, and they wanted a stronger union of states. Even though nowadays it's said to be about "states rights", that rally cry was adopted decades later. The real federal overhaul was during the era from FDR through LBJ. That was when the Federal really grew, and Federalism went from (to borrow my AP Gov teacher's metaphor) a layer cake with clear distinctions between flavors, and a marble cake where it's all one big mess.
Second, delegation of powers is the key to running a country of this size. Imagine if every road and bridge in every town had to go through Congress. It would demand too much of lawmakers who have nothing to do with the subject. In the executive office, it is important to have a Governor who can act quickly in case of a local emergency. Though I'm not fond of Kristy, his reaction to hurricane Sandy was a good example of this.
There is also the "laboratories of Democracy" theory that I'm quite a fan of. Giving states some amount of sovereignty allows them to make more experimental policies, and test them in a smaller setting to see if they work before enforcing them federally. The best example I can give of this is the Affordable Care Act mimicking Romneycare.
As for Colorado, well, long time forumites might remember what I had to say about that, but I'll add a little here, as well. The twenty-three states that have nullified marijuana's schedule one status have no legal backing. You can't claim that as a case of "states rights". It goes back to that apocryphal Jackson quote "John Marshall has made his decision, now may he enforce it." There is no legal precedent from courts to allow states to ignore Federal law. However, there is also no way to force the President to enforce Federal policy short of impeachment (which won't happen because nobody in power cares that much).
The civil war to my mind settled any issue over who reigns supreme. They forced states to remain part of the Union in contradiction to the declaration of Independence and what was assumed by many at the time to be a legal right of the states. If someone can take your rights they aren't rights merely privleges. Removing states does not mean abolishing district type distributed administration. The fiction of states rights which is what grants them any amount of autonomy is what allows the "laboratories of democracy" to function. However this autonomy is granted at the whim of the federal government, making anything a state does without punishment tacit condoning of the policies, at least on a trial/experimental basis.
The civil war to my mind settled any issue over who reigns supreme. They forced states to remain part of the Union in contradiction to the declaration of Independence and what was assumed by many at the time to be a legal right of the states. If someone can take your rights they aren't rights merely privleges. Removing states does not mean abolishing district type distributed administration. The fiction of states rights which is what grants them any amount of autonomy is what allows the "laboratories of democracy" to function. However this autonomy is granted at the whim of the federal government, making anything a state does without punishment tacit condoning of the policies, at least on a trial/experimental basis.
The states have plenty of autonomy: there are many significant issues that are both from a de facto and de jure perspective entirely within their local control.
States incorporate cities different ways. County level government structures vary widely. Aside from minimum federal requirements, education is self-managed, including its funding. State income and sales taxes. Local building and zoning controls. etc...
I agree that they have some autonomy. However, what does having states manage that do to greater benefit than is possible from a single entity? Education has suffered in part due to conflicting standards, especially on children that are required to move by their families. A standardized system would allow for easy(er) transitions. At least as far as the academics goes. I was looking for what advantages are offered by the system of states over one central government?
The primary advantage is that on a national level, compromise has long been largely impossible. On issues like education, more progressive states are able to experiment and (ostensibly) move forward in ways that they never could if held back by the full weight of the Union. At the same time, conservative states can maintain their local status quo, while still being constrained by federal minimum standards.
Instead of deconstructing your argument, I'm going to pose a question that will help me better rebuttal: What problem do you think would be solved through the abolition of Federalism?
There is also the "laboratories of Democracy" theory that I'm quite a fan of. Giving states some amount of sovereignty allows them to make more experimental policies, and test them in a smaller setting to see if they work before enforcing them federally. The best example I can give of this is the Affordable Care Act mimicking Romneycare.
I find this hilarious considering your opinion that the states allowing recreational marijuana are as bad as Callhoun and the Confederacy.
There is also the "laboratories of Democracy" theory that I'm quite a fan of. Giving states some amount of sovereignty allows them to make more experimental policies, and test them in a smaller setting to see if they work before enforcing them federally. The best example I can give of this is the Affordable Care Act mimicking Romneycare.
I find this hilarious considering your opinion that the states allowing recreational marijuana are as bad as Calhoun and the Confederacy.
Small Federal government =/= weak Federal government. I'm actually one of the more radical Anti-Federalists on here, but even the Jeffersonians knew that the Union must be supreme, even when it is wrong.
Maybe I'll write an essay on my version of a Utopian America. It's not a version I've seen anyone else voice.
Instead of deconstructing your argument, I'm going to pose a question that will help me better rebuttal: What problem do you think would be solved through the abolition of Federalism?
Lack of standardization in a variety of things. Roads, education and laws for a start. But on rethinking I'm not sure if it ever was enacted it would make any difference in reality due to the greater weight of lack of cooperation. I do think the US suffers from being to large and could benefit from being broken up, just to bring government closer to the people it serves, or should be serving anyway.
What's the ethical difference between buying used music versus piracy? Sure, you have to give something up when buying used music, but the artist still doesn't get compensated.
What's the ethical difference between buying used music versus piracy? Sure, you have to give something up when buying used music, but the artist still doesn't get compensated.
In the modern world, there is no ethical difference.
Buying used media has the same effect on the creator as pirating it.
It's why a company like GameStop REALLY wants you to buy their used games for 3 dollars less because they're basically getting 200% return by paying 33% of the original price. And producers hate it because they get 0% of that profit.
What's the ethical difference between buying used music versus piracy? Sure, you have to give something up when buying used music, but the artist still doesn't get compensated.
In the modern world, there is no ethical difference.
Buying used media has the same effect on the creator as pirating it.
In theory, the existence of a used media market lowers the cost of buying a product because you can sell it later. Buying a used product also increases demand for used media, raising prices of used goods and making it slightly more likely for people to buy new instead of used.
At least in theory, in reality there's probably no effect.
Yeah he owns a big chunk of vitamin water which he made a shit load of money off, he just made some bad business decisions elsewhere. I'm sure he's still got plenty of money.
Yeah he owns a big chunk of vitamin water which he made a shit load of money off, he just made some bad business decisions elsewhere. I'm sure he's still got plenty of money.
According to several news sources this is not the case. In fact he owes people a lot of money.
EDIT: Well actually maybe he does, but I think a lot of it is tied up in random bullshit. He claims hes 28 million in debt though but is estimated at 150 million so I dunno.
Do conventions allow airsoft or bb guns if they are unloaded? If so, get one of these or these and paint the tip orange or buy a cheap thread cover to paint if its removable. It would be a pretty fun man-toy when you're not cosplaying.
Do conventions allow airsoft or bb guns if they are unloaded?
Mostly not. Some do if they're rendered permanently and totally inoperable (all moving parts permanently fixed). Many don't allow them under any circumstances.
Do conventions allow airsoft or bb guns if they are unloaded? If so, get one of these or these and paint the tip orange or buy a cheap thread cover to paint if its removable. It would be a pretty fun man-toy when you're not cosplaying.
Every convention has its own weapons/props policy posted on its web site. I think all the conventions I go to only allow things that are 100% fake.
Comments
Second, delegation of powers is the key to running a country of this size. Imagine if every road and bridge in every town had to go through Congress. It would demand too much of lawmakers who have nothing to do with the subject. In the executive office, it is important to have a Governor who can act quickly in case of a local emergency. Though I'm not fond of Kristy, his reaction to hurricane Sandy was a good example of this.
There is also the "laboratories of Democracy" theory that I'm quite a fan of. Giving states some amount of sovereignty allows them to make more experimental policies, and test them in a smaller setting to see if they work before enforcing them federally. The best example I can give of this is the Affordable Care Act mimicking Romneycare.
As for Colorado, well, long time forumites might remember what I had to say about that, but I'll add a little here, as well. The twenty-three states that have nullified marijuana's schedule one status have no legal backing. You can't claim that as a case of "states rights". It goes back to that apocryphal Jackson quote "John Marshall has made his decision, now may he enforce it." There is no legal precedent from courts to allow states to ignore Federal law. However, there is also no way to force the President to enforce Federal policy short of impeachment (which won't happen because nobody in power cares that much).
States incorporate cities different ways. County level government structures vary widely. Aside from minimum federal requirements, education is self-managed, including its funding. State income and sales taxes. Local building and zoning controls. etc...
Maybe I'll write an essay on my version of a Utopian America. It's not a version I've seen anyone else voice.
Buying used media has the same effect on the creator as pirating it.
What if you steal their instruments, but give them back their music?
At least in theory, in reality there's probably no effect.
EDIT: Well actually maybe he does, but I think a lot of it is tied up in random bullshit. He claims hes 28 million in debt though but is estimated at 150 million so I dunno.