Hellobee Boards

I like that each state governs itself. It has definitely impacted our decision of where we might live!

For example- my parents homeschooled us and it was a great experience. There are many states though that make it nearly impossible for families to homeschool and I know my parents chose to live here because of the lenient homeschooling laws.

That's just one example

@mrbee: <--- what he said It stems from how our country developed, and the fact that each state developed differently with different needs/wants. States' rights are meant to ensure that the things that are important to each individual state can remain important, and is meant to recognize that the federal government's umbrella is not one size fits all.

@mrbee: this! Perfectly said.

@Weagle: Haha I did too!

@sunny: in Canada though, each province governs itself, yes?

I forgot to mention that federalism can work both ways!

The original fear was that the big bad federal government would oppress its citizens, and that state governments would be better behaved. But during the civil rights movement of the 60s, it was often the federal government who protected citizens from their oppressive state governments!

During the fight for marriage equality, the roles originally played out as expected: it was the federal judiciary that originally upheld the constitutionality of a ban on gay sex acts, and the federal legislature that passed DOMA (and the executive that signed it). Meanwhile, a number of state governments legalized same sex marriage.

But more recently, things have looked more liked the 60s: the federal executive refused to defend DOMA, and the federal judiciary ruled DOMA unconstitutional. Meanwhile, something like 35 states have banned same sex marriage through laws or amendments.

So in general, federalism has provided some healthy competition... sometimes it's the states that protect their citizens from the federal government, and sometimes it's the federal government that protects citizens from the state.

Because what works and is good for the people of New York is not what the people of Kansas need...and Alaska, and Idaho, etc... Every state is a different culture, with different needs and values.

@Mrs. Jacks: +10000

I could say a lot more...but then I'll be even later for work than I already am, haha.

Excellent question. I will find you some good articles later on (possibly tomorrow, I have a lot going on today!). In the scheme of the Constitution, the states are sovereign and ALL power lies with them except for specifically enumerated, and limited, powers bestowed to the federal government. States have the 'police power', which is the power to regulate the way people live their lives. The national government does not have the police power.

Federalism is meant to preserve individual communities' ability to determine the rules under which they want to live. The states are supposed to be little crucibles of democracy. As an example, look at Maryland. The Founders didn't think much of Catholics, and didnt want to live under their rules, but were happy to let them set up shop by themselves there. The decentralized structure of federalism is the only way to secure genuine freedom for communities. The power to govern is left in the hands of the people.

The whole point of federalism is to avoid oppression, not to enable it. I reject the suggestion above that support for federalism implies any level of support for oppression of minorities.

@looch: Great point!

@Mrs. Jacks: It's definitely true that state rights has been used historically to justify oppression of underrepresented groups! But it can go both ways... the Prop 8 law wouldn't even have come up for judicial review if California hadn't allowed same sex marriages. And 13 states in total have legalized same sex marriage!

@Mrs. Jacks: Totally agreed that "state rights" can be code as you described! But just pointing out that over the longer term, the Constitution's design has been surprisingly effective at playing the state and federal governments off of each other... the rulings may favor one side or another at times but overall, I think that federalism has been a positive feature of our constitutional design!

@mrbee: it is an interesting and complicated dance.

@sunny: I think the other bees explained federalism well, but on your marijuana example.. States really should not be allowed to legalize marijuana use bc the federal government has explicitly said that it is illegal. The Supremacy clause states that federal law trumps state law. Unfortunately for the Feds, it's difficult to police illegal marijuana use throughout the country without state officers on their side.

@Mrs. Jacks: Maybe I need to read more, but when I hear people going on about states rights, that's exactly what I think of, but then, I live in the south.

@MsMamaBear: yeah, I know what it was originally supposed to mean, but my whole point was to tell Sunny what it means when you hear the term on Fox News or in other media outlets. These days there is a general viewpoint that goes along with the term and when I hear it, I tend to analyze the speaker's words carefully and skeptically.