seem quite obvious that the federal government is a cluster fuck.
Why can't the democrats get behind decentralization and moving power to the states, so that legislative battles can happen at a more local, manageable scale and with increased accountability?
What is the argument against that?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
lmgtfy.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>Why can't the democrats get behind decentralization and moving power to the states, so that legislative battles can happen at a more local, manageable scale and with increased accountability?
>What is the argument against that?
That these ideal attributes you present as a consequence of decentralization are not truly inherent and are mere wishful thinking on your part.
Because the democrats want to force everyone into their progressive mold, and the most efficient way to do that is through centralized federal power used as a large club to force every state to follow whatever norms they wish to set.
It's a lot more time consuming and tedious to have to go fight the same battle 50 times in 50 different states.
That in a nutshell is why states rights are inconvenient for democrats.
Now, in fairness to the dems, there are a lot of cunt republicans for whom "states rights" is a code word for "white, Christian power," and who would waste no time bringing back the Jim Crow south, and making life generally unbearable for a large minority of their population. So some federal power is reasonable to prevent at least the worst abuses of power on the local and state levels.
In short, it's a big shit sandwich, and we all have to take a bite.
Not at all.
Managing smaller organizations is easier than managing larger ones.
Having a smaller constituency means faster propagation of information which makes elected officials more accountable.
This is common sense backed up by hard evidence in the real world.
>who would waste no time bringing back the Jim Crow south,
they can't without a constitutional amendment.
this is an invalid fear
Don't forget, the original Jim Crow laws were created and passed by Democrats.
> Someone who's never witnessed ignorant-ass small town politics in real life detected.
Small electorates are just as willing and likely to be dumb as fuck, bro. 500 people do not magically become Nobel laureates when you lump them together any more than 5 million people do.
it has absolutely nothing to do with dumb or smart.
If a dumb town elects stupid official to pass retarded policies, justice has been served.
What isn't just if for them to impose those policies on people thousands of miles away who share very little with them culturally or ideologically.
Or prevent other's policies to be passed.
> literal autist detected
If you think that racism isn't alive and well in the south, and many conservative southern states would waste no time finding exciting new ways of creating institutional racism, you're living in a fantasy world bro.
Also, no, a constitutional amendment wouldn't be needed. A change to the voting and civil rights acts of 1964 and 1965 would be needed, as well as a reversal of the Supreme Court decision in brown v board of education. Admittedly a high bar to clear, but far short of amendment. The fact that policies are STILL being struck down at a federal level for violating civil rights demonstrates just how alive and well the efforts to reinstate these laws are. If you eliminate the power of the federal government to counteract these laws, you will, in very short order, be back in an era of institutionalized racism much like the Jim Crow south.
And if 251 people in small town USA elect to oppress the 249 other people in their town, there should be no recourse other than violence? That's what the states rights argument boils down to - if there is no higher authority, then the next point of appeal is armed force.
They're democrats, they don't think.
who the fuck said racism isn't alive?
Constitutional amendments are the way the founders of this country devices to deal with the kind of abuses you describe.
That is the right way.
California simply attempting to decide whats good for Kansas without using the constitution is the wrong way, and exactly the kind of short sighted bullshit that got us into this mess
see
This is true, but the democrats of the reconstruction era south bear little to II resemblance to the modern Democratic Party. They shared a name, but little else - in fact, since the reconstruction era, the democrat and republican parties have more or less completely traded platforms.
faster propagation of info, in the age of the internet....
yes cuz Sup Forums trolling is just as effective as talking to your neighbours in order to promote social chance.
You claimed that Jim Crow laws could not be brought back "without a constitutional amendment." I pointed out that that is false, and outlines the reasons why.
The constitution already provides a way for California and Kansas to enforce rules on each other: the entire structure of the constitution outlines a federal system that provides exactly that power.
What the constitution says is, "anything not explicitly granted to the federal govt here is reserved to states or individuals."
You can certainly dispute specific applications of federal power - god knows that generations of constitutional scholars have done just that - but claiming that the only way for a law or regulation to be enacted at the federal level is to pass an amendment is fucking sperglord level idiocy.
No one is saying do away with fed gov ya dumbfuck. Why is it always mutually exclusive outcomes with you liberals? Unable to think rationally.
Op is saying exactly that, friend - "fed govt is a clusterfuck, do away with it and put power back to the states."
>What is the argument against that?
It's not the 18th century.
The actions of one state are no longer as isolated as they once were.
Democrats are pushing for just that due to the federal government being an unfixable clusterfuck. You'd know that if you spent litteraly 4 seconds typing it into Google, you self-righteous prick.
Because they feel they are more intelligent than commoners and should thus control all money and all aspects of our lives
>the entire structure of the constitution outlines a federal system that provides
yes limited to the items described here:
en.wikipedia.org
> can't even read the full post where I specifically said just that.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
You're kidding, right?
so where is the item about protecting minorities, I don't see it
orly, post link
No, you're putting words in his mouth. He said decentralization. Meaning the federal government does as much as protect the borders and uphold the contitution on a very basic level.
>In OPs America
Hey let's go on a road trip
Alright now let's check what states we want to avoid since they have a bunch of retarded laws now
No, cause things done universally makes things easier for everybody. Your way is like everybody having a different AC power socket in their house, wouldn't that suck?
In theory I agree, but I think California is the best arguement against more powerful states. It's a communist fiefdom
read the first few articles, pretty lame mostly about the travel ban.
If I see something about pulling healthcare away from feds and lowering taxes I'd be impressed
> How do I necessary and proper clause?
> How do I 14th amendment?
You need to brush up on your 9th grade civics, bro. You're going full retard.
>> How do I 14th amendment?
lol wtf is this dude.
So now it is enforced by an amendment after all? Ok thats what I said in the first post.
And which part of the constitution is the federal government overreaching on, then?
Because the constitution enumerates far more than just "homeland security" as the power of the federal government.
>The only internet is Sup Forums
Face to face happens online too.
With no physical limitations.
Welcome to the global village.
how about we start with healthcare, welfare, education
The conservatives want to decentralize power to weaken all government because conservatives stealth their power behind the clergymen and businessmen. They know local government will remain weak. And when they weaken, the priests will fuck you in the ass, and the business men will provide the ass fucking merchandise.
It is not an altruistic shift in power. It's intentional deception, intended to obfuscate how they want to directly control you. I'm no fan of the liberal model, but at least liberals want to fuck you in the ass with the very tool they advertise...the government itself which can at least be audited by vote.
online debate is nothing like face 2 face.
which is also part of the reason we are in this political clusterfuck now
The fucking amendments are considered a part of the constitution you fuckin Mong.
The constitution grants power to congress to create laws for enforcing the powers granted by the constitution. Suggesting that every law made by congress has to be an amendment is fucking retarded.
so what is even your fucking point, you are incoherent.
if the constitution grants that power now, the abuse you described is a false fear.
if it doesn't, then its none of congress's business, unless we chose to amend the constitution
> Suggesting that every law made by congress has to be an amendment is fucking retarded.
I suggested no such thing, scroll up
>Why don't Democrats support States' Rights?
They do. Here's a source.
>Oh, that doesn't count.
If you want an echo chamber, kindly shove your head a little further up your own ass into the large intestine where you're free to spout your easily disproved bulshit without fear of encountering evidence to the contrary.
>The conservatives want to decentralize power to weaken all government because conservatives stealth their power behind the clergymen and businessmen. They know local government will remain weak. And when they weaken, the priests will fuck you in the ass, and the business men will provide the ass fucking merchandise.
A sound, reasonable riposte from a level-headed liberal.
>They do. Here's a source.
yes in areas that has nothing to do with the actual clusterfuck
Because libtards are the biggest cancer to ever walk the face of the earth. They think all their dumb ideas are great ideas and think you should be just like them. They are ironically like fascists. I'm a libertarian, so I don't really give a fuck what you like to do with your life as long as you don't fuck with my life. Libtards want us all to hold hands and drive a Prius and get gender neutral operations and become gay Muslim climate alarmists. That's the fucking libtard wet dream right there. You want to make the world better, get rid of all the fucking libtards.
Great, now proceed to show your work. how is each of these an overreach by the federal government, constitutionally? Bear in mind that the Supreme Court has disagreed with you on all topics, so you should be prepared to show how their reasoning is flawed.
You don't get to beg the question by shouting a list of trump CA,Paige talking points punctuated with a misty-eyed moan of, "B-b-but muh Constabushun!!!!!!"
OP here, I didn't claim they were constitutional overreaches, only that they are obviously not being handled competently by the federal government.
Let's be honest, states like Alabama can't be trusted to make their own laws.
If these states had the chance they'd lower their own education standards etc. For fuck sake dildos, anal, blowjobs all illegal in Alabama.
The fucking point is that there is no constitutional amendment required to enable Jim Crow era institutional racism again.
The Jim Crow laws were fucking responses to the 14th amendment by the states - the laws followed the amendment. The only thing preventing them from coming back is a reversal of federal court decisions and changes to the 1964 and 1965 voting and civil rights acts. That falls far short of the level of constitutional amendment.
The congress has the authority to enforce the 14th amendment, since 1868. It took them nearly 100 years to reach an interpretation that said "Jim crow laws are unconstitutional." If you do away with federal power, or even severely curtail it, you will see a fresh resurgence of these laws in conservative states, and you will lack a significant counterweight against them.
If Jim Crow laws ceased to exist the moment the 14th amendment was passed, you'd have a point. Since they were alive and well for nearly 100 years after, your point that somehow the government will continue to enforce the law because it's a constitutional amendment falls far short of believability.
Except that democrats' ideas -- which aren't populist and resemble a coalition of fringe special interests -- are not playing well at the state and local level right now. So even if it was true that managing at the state or local level was easier, the democrats' would be devolving further power away from themselves.
For the foreseeable future, recapturing control of the federal government is the democrats' only hope.
Okay, so if they're not constitutional overreaches, then the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate these matters, and the starts do not have the authority to override the federal laws.
Even if the individual states feel the federal government is making a hash of it, the federal government still has the authority.
There's your answer, op.
Because if the states had their way, the south would still have slavery. There was a whole war fought over this.
so then this falls into my second point
> if it doesn't, then its none of congress's business, unless we chose to amend the constitution
what we shouldn't do is be ok with extra-constitutional federal powers, because you know, congress is wise and just.
That is literally defeating the entire point of the fucking thing.
I don't get your pointl
this authority you speak off is just the authority of the people exercised via congress.
So if the people want those things to be handled at the state level, they will.
My question is why don't they
>Why can't the democrats get behind decentralization and moving power to the states, so that legislative battles can happen at a more local, manageable scale and with increased accountability?
The Democrat is a totalitarian. They have a lust for power and control, and they will attempt to grab it via any means possible.
Their appeal is not through logic, but emotion and they work on numbers game. Expect standardized appeals to the weak minded with claims of a greater outcome. Social pressure and hivemind ensures internal feelings of resentment are kept quiet.
What are you even arguing? You said that a return of Jim Crow laws requires a constitutional amendment - which it doesn't.
Now you're saying, "if it doesn't require amendment, it's none of congress' business?"
Explain your reasoning on that one champ, because it's pretty clear that equal rights for all citizens conflicts pretty strongly with a state law that limits the rights available to some subsection of its citizens.
Because we don't have a direct democracy, we have a federal republic. Even if the people really really wish hard that the federal government didn't have a particular power, it still has that power granted to it by the constitution.
>What are you even arguing? You said that a return of Jim Crow laws requires a constitutional amendment - which it doesn't.
I was assuming it needed a repeal of the 14th
but maybe you are right and it doesn't, in that case it sounds like we need a amendment properly protecting those rights.
that is the proper way to fight that battle, if the need arises.
that is nonsensical.
Having a power doesn't mean it must be exercised even if the entire fucking country doesn't want to.
A federal republic still acts on popular demand
The federal government has the power to invade and anex canada. Why da fuck its taking so long?
The 14th amendment reads, in part:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Segregationists argued that, "they have equal rights, they're just separate from the good white people." As with all laws, they're subject to interpretation, and in some cases it takes years for the courts to establish a reasonable meaning, even if the law is on the books. If you say that every slow interpretation requires enshrinement as an amendment, I'm going to again suggest you go back and look at the requirements for an amendment, and also, request that you think about why the constitution would grant any legislative power to congress, if the constitution itself is supposed to b the only source of authority and power in the federal government.
Healthcare: This issue would be, at best, incredibly difficult to handle at the state level due to differences in wealth and population size. Collective bargaining power is also diminished when you split things up by state, and you effectively mandate more administrative overhead for any business attempting to operate across state lines.
Welfare: Mostly a money issue. The rust belt would starve while the homeless in California would live like kings.
Education: Similar to welfare, in that states currently have massively different available budgets per capita. Also probably the only one where state regulation taking precedence over federal precedence makes any sense, until you acknowledge that the wealthier states have a right to make sure their money is being spent well as opposed to being spent on programs that teach children that dinosaur bones were planted by satan to test their faith.
Because states would radically legislate in ways that would inevitably lead to succession or another civil war
this guy
Meanwhile on a random TV
It's nice to see Sup Forums have a sensible discussion
Correct - the government has no specific imperative to act, but it does have the authority to do so, and the states do not. So, even if you wish the states would, the federal government is where the power resides. If a state wants to do something that conflicts with federal authority, the federal authority wins out.
By your own argument that the federal government is an extension of the people's will, then implicitly, whatever the federal government does must be a reflection of the will of the people, right?
...
they have legislative power to enact laws that falls into the enumerated powers.
You are making this harder than it really is.
And if Alabama start lynching negros, getting 2/3 majorities to pass an amendment shouldn't be hard.
Or if it is, that would also be the will of the people, we could live with it or move to canada
Having the power to do something does not demand the exercise of that power. You have the power to pull your pants down and jerk off at the dinner table - why haven't you done it yet today?
Furthermore, having the power but electing not to exercise it does not cede the right to exercise that power to someone else. You have the power to jerk off at the dinner table, and you elect not to, but your buddy really wants to jerk you off, so I guess that makes it okay for him to pull your dick out and go to town, right?
the states can do it as well.
In fact most have their own complimentary welfare and health systems, right now
Not going to college
Not learning comparative analysis
Not learning formal logic
Not learning the scientific method
thinking you know something
Why not just split the country up then?
>I'm libertarian
I'm a retard
Fixed that for ya user, no need to thank me
> I want a smaller car
> why not just buy a tricycle then?
Okay, let me quote some more of the 14th amendment for you:
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
The constitution enumerates PRINCIPLES for governing. If you needed an amendment explicitly prohibiting every possible racist act, you would have a constitution that is literally millions of pages long, with millions of specific amendments. Instead, the constitution states the principles the government should follow, and delegates autorotate to create actual laws enforcing those principles in the specifics to congress.
This is LITERALLY 9th grade civics - are you really this ignorant of the constitution and our system of government?
And they have such systems in ways that MUST NOT conflict with the federal government's authority.
QED.
So if you think the 14th amendment gives the federal goverment powers to enact anti-racist laws, the abuse you described is a false fear.
you are going in circles.
you are just making shit up.
They can and do conflict, in many ways.
>why can't democrats
What, with (s)hillary clinton as the posterchild/forerunner for 'murican democracy? Is this a joke?
Sure, if maybe perhaps somebody akin to Jill Stein were a more popular candidate (i'm just guessing she is democratic tbh) we would have a chance at real democracy but this is not democracy that we have
Why don't we have (true) democracy?
Well, people just accept what is going on. Nobody is fighting against the evils in this world, we assume the purlease will do everything for us. I am saying, in essence, it is partly our own fault, that we should have been more VIGILANT.
Animal cruelty? It's an economy! And it is disgusting. Our philosophy is outdated by about 2000 years give or take a few centuries depending on which publisher we take into consideration. And this is no surprise when our morals have been backwards for at least a millenium.
That, and the opressive government which actively enforces a form of demotyranocracy to the point that we do indeed need a true reform of global governance. Governance should be in our best interests as sentient beings so we should work on improving government to be better equipped to serve OUR needs. (As sentient beings on a living planet that requires certain care of).
Democracy is false as long as we pay for the land we walk and dwell upon. Until the land is free we do not even use the word democracy to describe our living situation. We are living on "owned" land which is more like a monarchy or dictatorship than democracy. It ain't even liberal. The two terms are a joke designed as a red herring. Take the blue pill for once.
Not when you consider that what's being proposed is a dramatic reduction in the authority of the federal government. Op posited that the federal govt is a clusterfuck and we should jus decentralize and push thins back to the states - in other words, completely neuter the federal government's authority.
Doing that would eliminate a major factor in preventing states from abusing their powers and infringing on the rights of minority citizens. The argument that there is nothing to fear if we dramatically curtail federal authority, because the federal government currently has a particular authority is specious and illogical.
its not an all-or-nothing thing.
its ridiculous to say we can't decentralize healthcare or education bbecause then negros will be hanged.
Please, political debate died due to television, not the internet.
Authority should be distributed between government and the community itself. I.e "constant vigilance, biatch" (imo)
Reason being, when the government does something wrong, it is already up to civilians to issue court orders or to "sue" the government or businesses acting in compliance with government or even business in general for malpractices etc.
There is no difference in accountability for both parties if the police do something wrong they need to go to jail too. The authority should be distributed as in a real democracy where everybody has authority and yes there can still exist a police force within such a system
Just a thought do expand or subtract on it i have given my input raw and unadultered. Lol.
Why do people think being rich is a good thing?
>Greed is bad but no one seems to fight it at all.
Segregation - i.e., "separate but equal", i.e. "Jim crow laws" did a lot more than see some black people lynched.
> decentralize education.
Colored schools, white schools.
> decentralize healthcare
Colored hospitals, white hospitals.
Extra bonus round: guess which hospitals and schools get better funding and facilities?!!
>Until the land is free we do not even use the word democracy to describe our living situation
explain to me how can any limited resource be free
Because if you did that the repubtards would destroy their own states.
>Dems are the only reason we aren't like China.
nah i don't think so, you just being paranoid
sounds like a bonus to me
I mean that argument works so long as you believe elctions are representative of the people, and you know damn well they are not.
The results in 1954, brown vs board of education required the presence of federal troops to integrate a school system. There are plenty of people alive who remember it, and more than a small number of them think it was a big mistake.
Trump's election on an explicitly racist, white nationalist platform suggests there's nothing paranoid in seeing this as a possibility.
Does a polar bear pay tax? Ergo the land is free for a polar bear thus proven that land can indeed be free.
In fact any resource on the planet is inherently free as nature does not pay money to exist. Only humans do.
What you mean to ask is how you can distribute among all people a (in your perspective) limited perspective. Land is biomass one could argue that biomass is not a limited resource but i digress. Your method of thinking strikes me as a fairly communistic viewpoint as your argument implies (even) distribution of a resource among all living people, lol.
If we just dropped the money gag alltogether would the land then not be free? The answer would result in a double negative fwiw.
Look up on youtube "off grid living" to understand this concept of "free" and "nature", words that may seem unfamiliar to people accustomed to this concrete jungle.
polar bears kill each other over land all the time.
so yeah, I guess thats one way to distribute limited resources
"All the time"
What are you anyway, a polar bear specialist? It's an analogy. Death is not a valid currency.
but even death has value
yeah its a horrible analogy, as you havent explained at all how do you plan to make a limited resource "free"
>Managing smaller organizations is easier than managing larger ones.
Fucking over each of the states on an individual level is easier, too.
We used to have fucking rivers literally catch fire and you shits want to take down the EPA.
Fuck you political niggers.
Not at all user, my white privilege means my home has whole house AC
Lol plug in AC