NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, let's talk about rights, shall we? It seems to be a repeating trend here in NSG that certain issues (E.G. gay marriage, abortion, etc) are asserted that they should be an issue for the states to decide.

What makes an issue a state issue? Why should it not be bumped up to a federal issue? Why shouldn't it be dropped down to a county issue, city issue, or even individual issue?

I'm not clear how we decide what should be decided on what levels.

EDIT: I'm not being obtuse, difficult, or insulting. I really want to know how we decide what should be decided at what levels.

There are legal reasons for issues to be decided on the various levels of government, but let me give you my opinion as to why an issue should be federal or otherwise. Most issues should be decided on the state level, because consensus over the solution is a lot easier to find. The residents of Mississippi are going to agree with one another over the solution to abortion more than the residents of the US are. Thus, legislation that benefits the majority of the people who will follow it is spawned.

There are legal reasons for issues to be decided on the various levels of government, but let me give you my opinion as to why an issue should be federal or otherwise. Most issues should be decided on the state level, because consensus over the solution is a lot easier to find.

Couldn't that same argument be applied to counties instead of states? Why stop at states?

The residents of Mississippi are going to agree with one another over the solution to abortion more than the residents of the US are. Thus, legislation that benefits the majority of the people who will follow it is spawned.

But why stop there and not bring it down to county, or even individual?

Couldn't that same argument be applied to counties instead of states? Why stop at states?

I suppose it could! I've never considered taking it down to counties, but I think that's probably because I doubt the ability of counties to enforce their legislation.

The Individual above all. Its what United States citizens treasure above all.

The Individual above all. Its what United States citizens treasure above all.

This is very true. However, why should the individual be valued above the general well being?

Down! Down to the City!

Protection of the individual requires federal legislation.

Why have any executive or legislative government at all?

Protection of the individual requires federal legislation.

Sometimes the protection of the individual requires the breaking of Federal legislation.

In the US, Federal powers have generally had more benefit to the individual due to the early rulings that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government. Thus, State legislatures had no difficulty in violating it - thankfully, the Incorporation process has now eased that situation.

Here in Australia, the pattern is different. The gravest threat to personal liberty here has long been the Federal Government, and particularly it's occasional power grabs. It has been state intransigence that has kept Australians as reasonably free as they are.

Why have any executive or legislative government at all?

Function. Some aspects of government cannot adequately be conducted in any other way.

Function. Some aspects of government cannot adequately be conducted in any other way.

Why have government perform those functions?

Why have government perform those functions?

What realistic alternatives are there?

...Here in Australia, the pattern is different. The gravest threat to personal liberty here has long been the Federal Government, and particularly it's occasional power grabs. It has been state intransigence that has kept Australians as reasonably free as they are.

What? It's the state governments that stop progress in this country. You're not a Queenslander, are you? Ah. Western Australia. That explains a lot .

Why have government perform those functions?

It's the most effcient and safest method. Many required services aren't really profitable - or if they were made so, the entire populace would suffer. Simultaneously, the only reasonable alternative, private companies, cannot be trusted with powers of taxation or tariff, or be expected to act responsibly with statutory powers, due to the profit motive.

Only government can be made both flexible enough to be responsive and firm enough to keep powerful entities (corporations, religions, social movements) in line.

What? It's the state governments that stop progress in this country. You're not a Queenslander, are you? Ah. Western Australia. That explains a lot .

I must admit, having the Fed take away twice the money it gives back does tend to colour one's perceptions of it.

What makes an issue a state issue? Why should it not be bumped up to a federal issue? Why shouldn't it be dropped down to a county issue, city issue, or even individual issue?


Meh. Here in Italy only the State (the central State, Rome) and the Regions can make laws. We have Chapter V of the Constitution detailing what is a statal issue, what is a regional issue, and what is a mixed statal-regional issue (and the rules for making laws on mixed issues).

I don't understand: the US don't have similar provisions in their Constitution? If they don't, they should.

I must admit, having the Fed take away twice the money it gives back does tend to colour one's perceptions of it.

My understanding was that WA, along with SA, Tas, NT and ACT, was a net recipient of Commonwealth largesse and that NSW, Vic and Qld were net givers.

Mmm. Some research is required.

IMHO, every issue should be decided at the lowest level possible, because the greater the level of decentralization, the greater (in theory) the level of accountability, and the easier it is to implement change. For example: Which do you think would be easier to make accountable, the mayor of a small town, or the head of government of an entire country?

Meh. Here in Italy only the State (the central State, Rome) and the Regions can make laws. We have Chapter V of the Constitution detailing what is a statal issue, what is a regional issue, and what is a mixed statal-regional issue (and the rules for making laws on mixed issues).

I don't understand: the US don't have similar provisions in their Constitution? If they don't, they should.

The U.S. Constitution very clearly lists what the federal government can and cannot do. It also has the (now entirely defunct) Tenth Amendment, which basically says that if a power isn't explicitly given to the federal government, it's left for the states or the people to decide.

The U.S. Constitution very clearly lists what the federal government can and cannot do. It also has the (now entirely defunct) Tenth Amendment, which basically says that if a power isn't explicitly given to
the federal government, it's left for the states or the people to decide.

Without explicitly saying what is for the people to decide and what is for the states to decide.

I would like to add: Obviously some things should not be left to the states or anyone else (slavery, etc.) but almost every other issue should. But states' rights should never be construed to be, or used as, a license to violate human rights.

Without explicitly saying what is for the people to decide and what is for the states to decide.

I think it's meant for the states to decide what should be decided by them (the states) and what should be decided by the people. I'll admit that they could have worded it better. But the point is that the Tenth Amendment (which Jefferson called the most important one) was meant to strictly limit the federal government (although it's obviously had no success in that regard).

I think it's meant for the states to decide what should be decided by them (the states) and what should be decided by the people. I'll admit that they could have worded it better. But the point is that the Tenth Amendment (which Jefferson called the most important one) was meant to strictly limit the federal government (although it's obviously had no success in that regard).

I don't see why letting the states decide to be centers of liberty or totalitarian monarchies is a good thing.

I don't see why letting the states decide to be centers of liberty or totalitarian monarchies is a good thing.

It's not. That's not the intent of the Amendment at all. The intent is to leave most issues for the states to decide, rather than the federal government, because, theoretically, it would serve as a counterbalance to the federal government if it ever decided to overstep its limits. Obviously letting the states decide some things for themselves (whether people have the "right" to enslave another human being) is a bad thing, but IMO, most issues should be decided at the state (or even better, local) level, for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post.

It's not. That's not the intent of the Amendment at all. The intent is to leave most issues for the states to decide, rather than the federal government, because, theoretically, it would serve as a counterbalance to the federal government if it ever decided to overstep its limits. Obviously letting the states decide some things for themselves (whether people have the "right" to enslave another human being) is a bad thing, but IMO, most issues should be decided at the state (or even better, local) level, for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post.

Originally the bill of rights did not protect individuals from state governments. We see this paralleled when state rights advocates who wish to limit the rights of individuals.

IMO, I think some kind o cooperative federalism works best. The feds provide funding and minimum standards while local government actually provide and administer services with room for experimentation.

Originally the bill of rights did not protect individuals from state governments. We see this paralleled when state rights advocates who wish to limit the rights of individuals.

That's very true, and it's the main flaw with the BoR.

In Spain one has state authority and provincial authority. These are divided, then, by town authority and there are small community councils that also decide on minor issues.

Australia is a federation with some odd quirks.

1. The six colonies that joined to form a Federation (NSW, Vic, Qld, WA, SA, Tas) had no fetters on their legislative powers. The state parliaments can still amend their own constitutions by Acts of Parliament.

2. Upon federation, the Federal Government had its powers strictly defined, whereas the states retained their freedom to legislate on any matter, however...

3. Where a state law and a federal law are in contradiction then the federal law takes precedence (provided the federal law is in within one of the areas stipulate in 2 above.)

4. Among the defined powers of the Federal Government is the power to legislate on Australian territories, including the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Under Federal legislation both these territories have their own Parliaments, however the Federal Government can overturn any legislation those Parliaments pass. For example, the Federal Government cannot make laws concerning euthanasia but it can make laws covering the Northern Territory. The Federal Government has overturned NT euthanasia laws. Should one of the six states pass such a law, the Federal Government could not overturn it. (I hope that makes sense.)

5. There is no mention of local government in the Australian constitution, therefore the Federal Government cannot make laws concerning local government bodies which exist entirely at the whim of state governments.

6. State governments can pass laws giving new powers to the Federal Government. For example, in the 1990s the Victorian Government passed legislation to the effect that all Victorian workers would be subject to federal industrial relations laws. The Federal Government happily took on the responsibility.

7. The greatest expansion of Federal Government power occurred when, around the time of World War 2, the states legislated to give the Federal Government the power to raise income tax. As part of the package the states relinquished the rights to raise their own. Ever since, the states have had to go cap in hand to the Federal Government for revenue. This has allowed it to dictate how the money is spent, regardless of its constitutional power. If the states don't agree, they don't get the money.

I should note that the agreement of 1939 that Errinundera refers to was always supposed to be temporary. This is clear from the writings of both the state Premiers and the Prime Minister of the time. However, post WWII PM Ben Chifley (an excellent administrator, but a tad too idealistic at times) argued it was still needed for post-war reconstruction (of Britain, not Oz - Australia was the only country the US owed money to). His replacement, Robert Menzies quietly forgot about the "temporary" nature of the agreement.