The debate "Should the states have more power" was started by
January 12, 2017, 2:48 pm.
By the way, neveralone is disagreeing with this statement.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 22 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
neveralone posted 17 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 9 arguments to the disagreers part.
RogueAmerican, Jeffrey2 and 11 visitors agree.
PoliticsAsUsual, historybuff, neveralone, emshanley, dapollman, Blue_ray, n0b0dysher0, LeftoverEye70, juniorsnow14, Fallaciae and 12 visitors disagree.
though this could also divide us.
well let's say there is very little support for weed. but as we see in some states a lot of people want it legal. so would it not be better for that to be to state? also by doing so if we see that states with it legal actually get a bigger income that helps it's stance does it not? also it makes most happy. the states that want it have it the ones that don't do not and I wouldn't think there would be a big fuss as much as there would be if it went to the top.
In theory very little. but if it is the will of the majority of the people of the country, then at least it has some legitimacy. allowing each individual state to make these kinds of decisions just fragments the country.
what's to stop the top from doing it?
I think people need to stand up to their government. they waste trillions of dollars trying to stop people from using a chemical that is less damaging than many others. it is a complete waste of time, money and people's lives. America should legalize it.
but if you leave things like that up to states, then what is to stop them from legalizing crystal meth? I don't think letting smaller areas make those kinds of decisions is a good thing.
OK so let's take him. would u prefer ur state or him making decisions like if u can smoke weed or not? or would u prefer the state. not saying u smoke weed but using as an example.
trump also has the lowest approval rating of any president going into their inauguration. 60% of the country do not approve of him and he hasn't even taken office.
their are some things that the state so don't be able to do by some stuff it should be able to do. also if. I remember correctly a lot of people on here believe Trump will do a lot since Republicans hold a lot of the power now. I disagree with it but that is what they say.
but trump does not have the power to pass laws that would do these things. he would need to get it through Congress and the Senate. it would also have to withstand a Constitutional challenge from the supreme Court.
if an individual state had the power to withhold people's rights for religious or personal morality then they could force their views on people without having to pass these hurdles.
well that depends as well. for example Trump did not get the popular vote. so if he has this power then he is one man able to do it. unlike at state where there's several people who will get fired very quickly if they don't.
it is slightly off topic. but since that is one of the core things you think a state should be able to do it is certainly relevant. I would argue states need to be prevented from having that power so the poorly educated masses in certain areas can't hide behind "states rights" to try to inflict their views on others. at least if it is on a national level then if it is the majority then they represent the will of the people.
that's for a different debate.haha
for social laws you might have a point. but for things like abortion and gay marriage it isn't a social issue. it is a human rights issue. no one should have the authority to take away those rights.
That is why we have differing powers. Social law is a local thing while federal law is more of a processing and oversight body. The powers get far more broad and impersonal the higher you go. But the best place for social law is the state as it better fits the region.
that's why I suggest state for the said laws. a happy medium or at least as close as u can get on this since their will always be unhappy people. but this is meant beyond religion. I mean on a lot of laws like the marjaina thing.
That's fair, but it breaks down in the application. By your argument, it would be even better if all decisions were done at the county level. That way people could have more control and group based on beliefs and morals. But what if people in a county disagree? In that case each town should decide for itself. But what if a town disagrees? Then we'd have to break it down by neighbourhood, then by house, then eventually everyone get to make their own laws.
I recognize that this is far beyond what you suggest, but it is a matter of degrees. I think it is better to set a baseline that says people are free to worship as they like so long as they font infringe on someone else's rights (no human sacrifice) and don't use their beliefs to justify discrimination. Rather than giving states the power to decide to ban these things, remove that option altogether.
this has nothing to do with my faith. this is about having more say in my life. let's say u live in a place that definitely sways left. would u be fine if u lived their and they put up a vote on majuania an u were for it and so was the rest of ur state so it got passed would u not be happy? then people with diff. political views in a diff. state could have their own rules. everyones happy. unlike if it was the nation gov. where the rule applies everywhere.
so your argument for states having more power is that you are more able to sway a state to allow you to enforce your religious views?
does the gov. not to have the same power if they wanted? but then if they did I would have to leave the country or stay and fight it. though I would say I would have more luck with state.
I understand that, and that's why states shouldn't have the power to ban such things, so that no one has to choose God or home.
true it would be hard if u have all that. idk on them. it is an idea in progress. hmm idk will think more about that situation. but personally I have no kids and my career and house are not nearly as important as my God.
That seems like you are either lying or a child with no concept of what goes into moving to another state.
First there is the matter of property. If you own a house, you would have to sell it quickly, likely at a substantial loss. If you had substantial possessions, you wouldn't be able to transport them all without significant expense.
Second there is employment. If you already are established in a career, quitting abruptly is a terrible thing to do. Many people would be unable to transfer to another office since few businesses have the capability.
Third there is family. If you have kids, it would mean pulling them out of school. It would mean moving away from any friends and family in the area, thus stripping you of your support network.
Do you honestly intend to claim that you would happily walk away from a career, house and everything else you would have worked for years to built for yourself because the state banned your religion?
if it was a state who's people wanted to have those right then sure they can and I would simply move to one that doesn't
it was a hypothetical example to highlight the fact that he would strongly object to a state having the power to prevent something he believes in, but a state banning something he objects to that is also a right is perfectly fine. specifically gay marriage and abortion. these are now protected rights and he would be happy to allow states to prevent.
and I was referring to you neveralone. also, Canada has provinces, not states.
i guess historybuff was talking about a Canadian state banning christianity.
I'm guessing that was towards me...? The people already provide power to the government, so my stipulation would have been that the states decide more of the already provided power, not that new powers would be given.
who? if ur talking about me u never said that something I don't agree with is right or wrong. I said I woul move to a diff. state.
my argument is that he is a complete hypocrite. he wants states to have more power, unless they use that power in ways he doesn't like. then it's wrong.
their not.he gave that example to relate his side to me since I'm Christian.
That's surprising to hear. What religion are they trying to ban? I've heard nothing of it from the state I'm in
also the gov. could illegalize my religion as well. but if the state does I could simply move to another state.
so the people get the say. it would definitely increase happiness. for example on the marijuana deal. now in the states where people who want to smoke it can take it to their state and he state can let them. or if they don't want people doing it then they can keep it illegal.
well that's a Constitution problem. those big things that go agaisnt that would go to the gov. and in this case hopefully be denied. I'm talking more into stuff that doesn't deal with the Constitution or going to war .
As a general whole, I do think that states have been pretty good with the powers they have been trusted. These individual choices will also provide a way for things like medicinal marijuana to have a chance at being legalized nationwide. If the federal rule was the only one, not 1 state would have this. That is just 1 example.
On the other hand, I do not know what more power would entail specifically, the balance right now allows an easy conversion from state to state but supposing that a drastic change, such as alcohol consumption laws, would cause for difficult cases.
As they are right now, I have no complaints, but I would actually risk saying that more power to individual states could provide for opportunities to strengthen the economies and better represent the communities. That might be a bit risky to say considering I think they already have that power with what's given but I believe that would also have to be something that is exclusive to the states ability to act and not as an agent of the federal government. (State can make more rules based on the freedom to do so in the government but not beyond what's previously possibly on the public.)
why would you think that? what advantage as a society is there to giving small communities the power dictate those things?
we will go with an example you would probably related to. what if a state had a high percent of atheists. they decide to ban Christianity. should a state be allowed to have that power? is there value in allowing that?
by this I mean many things. like the states being able to dictate what laws are abolished in their state and what ones are created and just generally more power.