There ought to be more uniformity about common law wives, when palimony is allowed/disallowed, who the nominal next of kin are, etc.
So many couples split up and/or live and die in separate states.
Do we really need 50 versions of these?
No.
State laws govern the prevailing standard of public opinion in that state. It would take a constitutional amendment to give the power to regulate marriage, divorce, and inheritance to the Federal government. It’s not needed, and in fact is contrary to one valuable function of the states – one state can try something out and see how it works, rather than all-eggs-in-one-basket feature of federal law.
Another no.
By the way–there are common law husbands, too. Here in Texas, at least.
Wasn’t there an attempt to amend the constitution to given the federal government power over marriage and divorce back in the 20s? I remember reading something about concern over child marriage and divorce mills.
Given that marriage is relevant with regards to various federal areas of jurisdiction, such as taxes, immigration, and the like, it would seem that at the very least it would be necessary for the federal government to have some rules about how it accepts State-recognized marriages.
It would? Why?
Why?
We already have some federal laws requiring uniformity of domestic issues, like the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”) and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”). These mainly just establish guidlines for establishing jurisdiction and resolving conflict of laws between courts of different states. As far as establishing direct federal control over family law, no way. The federal goverment doesn’t want direct control over family law issues. Since 1859, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that lower federal courts don’t have jurisdiction over common divorce cases in what’s called the “domestic relations exception.” Basically, divorces are piddley and the feds have better things to do. Federal courts are crowded enough, can you imagine what it would be like if they had jurisdiction over every divorce, child custody, and unending child support modification case in in America?
pravnik, aren’t you conflating federal legislative jurisdiction with federal court jurisdiction? assuming Congress could pass a federal divorce act that applied uniformly across the U.S., would it be constitutionally required to say that only the federal courts would have jurisdiction? couldn’t they say that the state courts had jurisdiction, except in situations like diversity?
just askin’ - I’ve got no dog in this fight. (But that is how it works in Canada - Parliament passes the divorce law, which gives jurisdiction to the provincial courts, except in a couple of very rare circumstances, when the Federal Court has jurisdiction.)
Because I think state laws are an anachronism.
And “states rights” as a goal is mainly a remnant of racial discrimination.
Are citizens of other western nations subjected to so many different laws?
All the duchies of the pre-Napoleonic era have been made obsolete.
There are national idenity cards, national auto registries, marriage and divorce laws.
Why are we still stuck in the past?
Most people think otherwise. Perhaps we should vote on it…
Racial discrimination is illegal, so that’s a red herring.
I don’t know. Why don’t you do some research and find out.
All nations must operate in exactly the same way? Why? Many US states are of equal size to European countries. Plus, we have a constitution that allows states to make their own laws on many matters.
You want me to change my mind because of what most people think. Why?
Why should we all think alike?
Red herrings? Yeah. That’s why the stars and bars still adorns pickup bumpers everywhere in the south.
The beauty of states’ rights is that it’s a way to manage the massive size and diverse population we deal with in the US. I believe that the more that is taken over by the feds, the more anger and divisiveness we will have in this country.
Ironic, then, that national marriage laws in the U.S. would almost certainly have the effect of entrenching discrimination against gay and lesbian couples into law.
Well this is one legitimate asking of “Why do you hate America?”. You can’t have the United States (think about the name for a moment) and have all those things. You are calling for a brand new nation on the existing soil under the guise of some type of nationialistic “progress”. Do you think the European Union has a goal of consolidating everything in Europe? The big question is “why?” Some people see these differences and get disturbed by the the diversity and differences among people and areas and others recognize their rights to live and operate differently under one philosphical umbrella. Centralization often doesn’t work worth a damn except to make it easier to make diagrams and simple pictures showing the way that the world works. It gets implimented through a joint partnership of control freaks and simpletons.
Luckilly, it is an extreme fringe opinion so we don’t have much to worry about back here on planet earth.
No, you don’t have to change you mind. But if you want to change anyone else’s mind you have to offer a reason, not just an opinion. So far, your reasons are pretty thin, and boil down to: many other nations do this (even though most of those other nations are smaller than our largest states).
Affirm the Consequent much? If A, then B. B, therefore A.
No, because when the U.S. federal government regulates, it has to regulate directly; it can’t create a regulatory system and then compel state goverments to enforce it. For example:
New York v. United States, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992).
Even assuming domestic issues were subject to an enumerated power, a situation where the U.S. Congress creates an entire family code and then compels state governments to enact and enforce it in their own courts instead of federal courts would be unconsitutional. Even if it were, federal courts would still have jurisdiction to review state court rulings, because now it’s a federal question.
UIFSA, UCCJA, etc are not federal laws. They are Uniform Acts as explained here:
These acts do not have the force of law unless and until they are enacted by a particular state.
I have been here for a while and seen versions of the OP pop up a few different times. I noticed that this is one of the only semi-serious topics that you can’t get a debate going on because there are so few people for it whether they are rich, poor, liberal, conservative, northern or southern. People want more local control and state has a group of other states that it doesn’t want to compromise with.
People that propose these things usually seem to be on the liberal side. It always sounds like they want a benevolent federal government to lord over the states like a wise father. There are so many problems with that notion I don’t know where to begin. I agree that centralized control of many things in the federal government is going to drive social issues mainly towards a national standard of social conservatism rather than the other way around. The compromises involved wouldn’t make anyone happy.
Another premise in the OP is flawed. The U.S. is the 3rd most populous nation in the world. Lots of other countries follow the state model including India. The countries in Europe can have strong central control (although often not well) because they are tiny geographically for the most part and have a population a fraction the size of U.S.
Well, you’re right. We shouldn’t all think alike. That’s why we have state’s rights. I don’t want to live under, say, the Virginia legal code. And I’m sure a good percentage of Virginians don’t want to live under a Californian legal code. That’s why they live in Virginia, and I live in California. If we tried to create a totally uniform national legal system, at best we’d end up with some half-assed Frankenstein that pleased neither the people in Virginia nor the people in California. That’s what makes state’s rights a good idea: it’s more responsive to the will of the inhabitants of the state, and, within certain limits, gives people who are dissatisfied with how one state works the option of moving to a different state without having to expatriate themselves entirely and move to a different country.