Do States Mean Anything Anymore?

[sun rise]

I voted <yes> to the question posed in the thread's title.
States can extend us greater rights when the fed fails.
They place a limit on how far bad federal policies can harm us.
It's to not put all our eggs in one basket.

Example.....
When the USSC weakened the 5th Amendment in Kelo v New London,
many states stepped up to enhance property rights.

When I was growing up 'states rights' meant the right to be racist and discriminate. Now 'states rights' means resisting the current regime's assault on our rights and liberties witness the almost complete push-back on the demand to have every voter's full information go to the feds for heaven knows what purpose. So that was my 'sort of' vote basis.

States can also be a laboratory where different ideas are tried out that might be adopted at the federal level.

 

[George-ananda]

States have progressively lost importance since the Civil War ended with a Union victory. I think it is time to do away with the Electoral College.

I have to suspect the future phase of societal evolution will be a lessening of the importance of countries and a Global government gaining ascendancy.

As I believe in alien life, I can speculate even further

 

[sun rise]

States have progressively lost importance since the Civil War ended with a Union victory. I think it is time to do away with the Electoral College.

I have to suspect the future phase of societal evolution will be a lessening of the importance of countries and a Global government gaining ascendancy.

As I believe in alien life, I can speculate even further

As far as the electoral college goes, I agree. Some states are trying to do it defacto already but how they force their votes to reflect the popular vote.

 

[Revoltingest]

When I was growing up 'states rights' meant the right to be racist and discriminate.

That's your memory.
I remember it too, but I also recall it being about constitutional limitations upon the federal government.
This meant preserving our civil liberties, our property rights, & our autonomy.

Perhaps our different memories are a matter of perspective. I've been a Libertarian for half a
century, although I spent several years as an unlabeled one before discovering my party existed.

Now 'states rights' means resisting the current regime's assault on our rights and liberties witness the almost complete push-back on the demand to have every voter's full information go to the feds for heaven knows what purpose. So that was my 'sort of' vote basis.

Tis only that Jim Crow has died a well deserved death, so it's no longer justified.

States can also be a laboratory where different ideas are tried out that might be adopted at the federal level.

Woo hoo!
Detente

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the dead of winter, in a cold you can feel in your bones, looking up at that big night sky of endless dark and innumerable stars over a world of snow and ice glistening in a soft moonlight, you know it means something to be a Montanan. I have never felt a peace more deep than standing in a field of waltzing snowflakes with no street lights, power-lines, roads or houses in sight. I think a connection to the land like that takes time to grow, years perhaps, and while visitors can marvel at the beauty, the land does not exist in their soul in the same way. You can look at a "state" as arbitrary lines on a map if you like, but I consider Montana my home.

But should your state get credit for that? Shouldn't you be thanking your county?

 

[columbus]

although one always has the option to move to another State.

This is not really true.
I have lived in Indiana for my whole life. So has my partner, Doug.
We'd have left many years ago if things were that simple.

We both have family here. Deep roots. We can't just pick up and move, despite being under assault from the powers that be for most of our lives.

No. I cannot just move. As much as this state angers me, I will die here.
Tom

 

[BSM1]

In the dead of winter, in a cold you can feel in your bones, looking up at that big night sky of endless dark and innumerable stars over a world of snow and ice glistening in a soft moonlight, you know it means something to be a Montanan. I have never felt a peace more deep than standing in a field of waltzing snowflakes with no street lights, power-lines, roads or houses in sight. I think a connection to the land like that takes time to grow, years perhaps, and while visitors can marvel at the beauty, the land does not exist in their soul in the same way. You can look at a "state" as arbitrary lines on a map if you like, but I consider Montana my home.

Living right on the edge of the Blue Ridge Mountains I get a sense of where you're coming from. I moved around a lot as a kid but wound up here. I tend to 'chose' this state rather than it choosing me, so yes, I feel a special loyalty to my home state.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

But should your state get credit for that? Shouldn't you be thanking your county?

A county does not manage an entire state, Montana is a big place. Maintaining the natural beauty and access to public lands in Montana is a substantial concern here. Montana representatives typically don't get elected in unless that is one of their major campaign focuses.

Beyond that Montanans do a lot to keep the state healthy and accessible.

Every summer forest fires are an issue here, they need to be allowed to burn but in a controlled manner. That is Montana men and women doing that.

We do camp ground and trail maintenance. I use to that as a summer job when I was young. Not just in the national parks but in many areas the public tends to use a lot. Litter wise we are a very clean state, people take a lot of pride in the natural beauty around here.

But they also regulate hunting, fishing and logging. Deer can get out of control out here if they are not hunted, it is crazy how fast they breed, and if they were left unchecked they would over run the place. They hand out bear tags and moose tags, making sure those are not hunted too heavily. They also watched the natural water sources and make sure they are not over fished. Also controlled logging is healthy for the forest.

They are very careful with their commercial and industrial zoning. They are closely monitored and placed in areas to minimize the negative impact. We have some history where this was not the case and it caused massive population and damage that is still impacting our environment, so it is also a big concern.

Maintaining the natural beauty of our state is something we actively try to do here and it is one of biggest political concerns when it comes to electing officials.

 

[esmith]

I have lived in 8 States, each one was different from the other and within each State you find different geographical differences. I for one would not want to live under the ideas and philosophy that is prevalent in some States. That's what makes States important; each State hopefully conforms to the desires of the majority of the population of that State and not the desires of a National majority.

 

[metis]

I'm really not much of a gung-ho patriot one way or another, and that also applies to my state. However, part of my family heritage goes all the way back to when there was Fort Detroit, with one of my great grandparents supplying furs and meat to the fort that was then controlled by the English. He was a voyageur and is part of the reason I'm a Me'tis (three of my four grandparents were Me'tis).

Anyhow, I love the state but could live elsewhere, and back around 1970 my wife and I almost moved to Canada.

 

[suncowiam]

I live in California. Right now, I'm not sure if I would want to live anywhere else given the political climate.

I'm an immigrant that never felt like an immigrant. I never dealt with racism. It's very inclusive where we are.

 

[Revoltingest]

I live in California. Right now, I'm not sure if I would want to live anywhere else given the political climate.

I'm an immigrant that never felt like an immigrant. I never dealt with racism. It's very inclusive where we are.

Better stay there.
Race isn't the only thing to get you hated.....
'Get California out of Portland': Vandalism of couple's home shows some locals' frustration

 

[suncowiam]

Better stay there.
Race isn't the only thing to get you hated.....
'Get California out of Portland': Vandalism of couple's home shows some locals' frustration

I saw that. I wouldn't blame Portlanders on that. Just don't pick an argument with the wrong folk.

 

[Revoltingest]

I saw that. I wouldn't blame Portlanders on that. Just don't pick an argument with the wrong folk.

But it's fun to dis Portlandia.
Anyway.....
Half me family is Asian, & they've noted no increase in racism.
Although daughter did encounter rampant sexism in South America.
And the Iranian portion doesn't report new problems either.
So if you're Asian, I wouldn't worry about the climate elsewhere.
You seem the type to get along anywhere.

 

[YmirGF]

In the dead of winter, in a cold you can feel in your bones, looking up at that big night sky of endless dark and innumerable stars over a world of snow and ice glistening in a soft moonlight, you know it means something to be a Montanan. I have never felt a peace more deep than standing in a field of waltzing snowflakes with no street lights, power-lines, roads or houses in sight. I think a connection to the land like that takes time to grow, years perhaps, and while visitors can marvel at the beauty, the land does not exist in their soul in the same way. You can look at a "state" as arbitrary lines on a map if you like, but I consider Montana my home.

Very nicely put.

It's much the same for me in my Pacific Northwest island paradise. I really can't imagine even wanting to live somewhere else.

 

[Politesse]

I certainly have more of a connection to California than I do to the federal government in Washington. But loyalty to government isn't a priority for me no matter how you define it geographically. I am loyal to family, to land, to my gods, and to my students. That's about it. I'm not really a fan of empires in general or the one I live in particularly; I would be happy to see a much more localized philosophy of governance even than the states. I don't, after all, have much to do with Southern California either.

I could definitely see the advantages of paring governance down to region, even though it would suddenly leave me as a progressive marooned in a conservative wasteland! The last thing I'd want to see is a more powerful national govenrment, all it would get us is more wars and less sense. The nitwits who run my town might be happy to declare war on wherever, but they'd have trouble cutting the check without many urban taxpayers to foot the bill for their adventurism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

While reading the latest thread in which people are arguing over the Electoral College, it occurred to me that the real underlying issue is how many Americans relate to the concept of an individual "State" within the larger "United States" of which we are all part.

Most of us are aware that when this country was founded, each State considered itself sovereign and technically had the right to refuse to join the Union. We could have had 13 individual nations instead of a single nation, although none of them wanted to return to colonial control either. So, they compromised to form the American Union, but also agreed on the basic concept that each State had a certain level of autonomy and self-rule - because it was felt that it would be unfair for the larger, more populous States to rule over the smaller States.

There is also a certain practical side to it, as it is assumed that people who live in an area would be more aware of the needs and issues affecting that area than someone who is an outsider. It is presumed that people from Oklahoma know better about what their State needs than someone from New York or California.

The downside of it all is that not all State governments are/were committed to human rights and individual freedom as one might hope for. The "States' Rights" argument was used disingenuously to justify and defend slavery and other policies which violated human rights - and this led to the Civil War.

Prior to the Civil War, people often had their loyalty, patriotism, and identities tied to their individual States, not necessarily to "America" as a whole. Robert E. Lee, for example, would have remained a Union general if Virginia had not seceded from the Union, as his loyalty was tied to Virginia, not America.

After the Civil War, there was a great push towards national unity and patriotism - and many of the songs and imagery associated with Americana and US patriotism came out in the period after the Civil War and leading up to WW1. The idea of being loyal to just an individual State seemed irrelevant, since we were all US citizens and all part of "one nation." The Fourteenth Amendment also added some legal "teeth" to the concept that every citizen in the US had rights guaranteed by the Federal government, even if State governments tried to violate those rights.

Does anyone actually feel any particular loyalty to their State anymore? Would one's identity as a "Texan" be more important than identifying as "American"? I consider myself an American first, an Arizonan second. I don't have any loyalty to the State government, and in fact, there's many things about the State government I despise greatly. But there are also many things about the Federal government I despise greatly.

So, to sum it all up, I'd like to see others' views on how they relate to the concept of "States," particularly in light of recent misgivings about the Electoral College and the overall relationship of State governments balanced against the power of the Federal government. If we eliminate the Electoral College, would this indicate a fundamental shift in our national philosophy regarding the existence of "States"?

Part of freedom is the ability to choose. If a state proves troublesome for one reason or another, then a person will have an open option to go to a state more suited to their political and personal philosophy.

That dosent happen when a centralized authority dictates everything as well as being a potential threat to individual freedom and choice when options like state autonomy are suppressed and removed. Federalism is important for the welfare and well being of individuals in terms of unified protections against things like foriegn powers and natural disaster effects but it's not so good if states lose sovereignty and a centralized form of government takes charge because of abuses like human rights issues and such.
Imagine if the south had won and then decided to abolish state rights in favor of a single ideology like the preservation of slavery. There will be no where to run except perhaps to another nation.

It was independent states that conversely joined together as a union and fought back. So it's a good thing as well in light how the civil war turned out.

Electoral college is a good thing, even if result's don't always fall into favor. Our founding fathers deserves credit for their foresight in this respect.

 

[Quintessence]

Here's an interesting article in the New York Times I ran across today that directly relates to this issue. Not only do states still mean something, they are in fact stripping power away from local governments:

"In the last few years, Republican-controlled state legislatures have intensified the use of what are known as pre-emption laws, to block towns and cities from adopting measures favored by the left. The states aren’t merely overruling local laws; they’ve walled off whole new realms where local governments aren’t allowed to govern at all.

...

States have banned local ordinances on minimum wage increases, paid sick days and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. They’ve banned “sanctuary cities.” They’ve even banned a number of bans (it’s now illegal for Michigan cities to ban plastic bags, for Texas towns to ban fracking).

...

These new pre-emption laws echo 19th-century “ripper bills,” legal scholars say, state laws that ripped control from cities over their finances, utilities, police forces and local charters. The backlash against them helped spur the movement for local control in the United States. Now home rule is under a “troubling nationwide assault,” warn municipal lawyers and law professors, including Mr. Davidson, in an amicus brief supporting another legal fight, in Cleveland."
Blue Cities Want to Make Their Own Rules. Red States Won’t Let Them.
​

A rather disheartening development, to be sure.

​