So becoming a state is like being made, and passing a state constitution is like swearing the omerta. This analogy actually works surprisingly well. 
Blood in. Blood out.
Yeah, now ya got it. 
No, I think possibly calling for an unconstitutional convention.
I’m pretty sure that the President’s ability to pardon people is limited to those convicted of federal crimes… Barack Obama can’t go pardoning all state death row inmates for a de-facto death penalty moratorium, no matter how much he may want to.
It’s the way the laws are written. I had the hardest time explaining this to a Swedish woman once- the President and Congress just flat out can’t prohibit a state from executing someone, unless it falls within certain Federal law prohibitions.
If the federal government really wanted to stop executions, there are ways they could do it. For example, how did they get a 55mph national speed limit? Any state that didn’t pass a 55mph limit didn’t get highway construction funds. Or, if the reason they wanted to stop executions was they (all 3 branches) believed that state governments were violating prisoners’ civil rights, they could even send in the troops to stop executions. And so on.
Personally, I think it’s good that the federal government has to cross major hurdles to interfere with the states, but can do so in extreme cases. I don’t think the balance falls exactly where it should, but at least the idea is right. A federal system can’t have ether no state autonomy or complete state autonomy, and nobody can draw up a perfect list of where the line should fall that will stand for all time.
Gee, I wish I had thought to point that out.
It’s not without its advantages. IIRC, and I think the lawyers here will confirm this, it’s the individual state we live in that makes most of the laws that actually regulate our lives, even if it’s the Federal government that takes most of our taxes, or at least most of the income taxes. Giving the states a lot of power in their own borders has the advantage that, very broadly speaking, each state can enact the laws best suited to the wishes of its population. There are undoubtedly Kansas state laws that are very popular there, but which we wouldn’t want in California.
Well, let’s see. We have about five times the population of Great Britain, five times the GDP, and have saved their ass in two wars. I’m not sure how we’re a rebellious little child of the UK any more than they’re a rebellious little child of Italy.
Hey, at least I agree with ya, huh?
You’re supposed to point & laugh when you do that.
{nitpicking with a mallet} Since 1066, England and later the UK has been a rebellious little child of France, not Italy. Before that, England was more like an offensive neighbor of the Scandinavian realms.
First, you misspelled helpless screaming victim when you wrote offensive neighbor.
Second, stop bothering me with facts unless you wish to find your bed filled with leeches.
Third, France given the back & forth wars between them, France & England are more like cousins who hate one another.
I forgot the fourth thing so I’ll just threaten you with leeches again.
I remain perfectly content that my family of barbaric Irish yawps fought off the vikings that came our way ca 785.
… and that the other side of my ancestry was part of the frenchies invading England. (That’s the side that’s descended from Pepin and Bertha. Not Charlemagne, his sister.) Best part of France left that evening, I’d say!