United States: How united are we, really?

Great Debates
1

The way I see it, we’re not united much at all. In the military, we all serve the same flag, but in the civilian world, it’s not that cut and dried, is it?

Every state has different interpretations of the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Amendments to the Constitution, for instance. Some of you may claim state’s rights on that, but the fact remains that laws are not the same throughout the U.S. On that, I would hope, there can be no dispute.

Every state has the “right” to do almost whatever they choose. The Constitutionality of a particular law may be brought into question, of course, but the interpretation of the Constitution varies with each new appointee to the Supreme Court, thus casting doubt on every Supreme Court opinion ever issued. There is no consistency in enforcement of the law, and frankly, there is no consistency in creation of laws.

Taxes vary in every state. How annoying is it to go to a state with crushing taxes, from a state that has none to speak of? That is patently unfair, based on cursory examination. Why do people from delaware pay less than I do from Pennsylvania? There’s no reason that I can think of. Also, have we reached the point where we once again have taxation without representation, since a minority of us vote and the incumbent can be generally secure in assuming that he/she will always win, negating the necessity to pay any attention to his/her constituency? (I guess that’s a debate all by itself, no?) Those are just a few examples that I can think of offhand.

So, I ask you. What really makes us a United States, instead of what seems to be an amalgamation of individual states, each with their own separate agenda? It seems very silly to me. If we are “united”, shouldn’t the laws passed by Congress be enforceable, and should state legislatures be allowed to do end runs around the Constitution, negating what little unity we may have?

2

I don’t really have the inclination for a full debate, so I’ll leave that too someone else, and instead I’ll tackle the first thing that jumps out at me.

Obviously, the expenses paid by the State Government of Pennsylvania are much different than the expenses paid by the State Government of Delaware. In fact, I’m sure that the amount of money each state government needs varies quite widely from state to state. In addition, the funding paid out by the state governments are not necessarily proportional to the number of people living in that state, because different states have different needs. A state with a higher crime rate needs a higher police budget, for example. And so on and so forth, for every conceivable variable. Conversely, the income that a state government receives from other sources than Sales Tax or Income Tax varies greatly as well. I can’t speak for any American states, but I hope I’m not oversimplifying when I say that Alberta is able to operate with no sales tax largely thanks to the large reserves of Oil in the province.

Would it make sense for every single state to tax its citizens exactly the same, regardless of how much money the state government needs?

3

**

I suppose we could start with a common language, history, and culture. Sure there are regional differences between natives of Maine and Texans but we’re all still Americans.

Take into account that we are the United States and not the United State or the Republic of America. We are all united under one federal government that represents all the states as a whole. However we also recognize that the wants and needs of Texas aren’t necessarily the wants and needs of Maine so we have state governments as well.

The laws passed by Congress are in fact enforced on a daily basis. And state legislatures may at times attempt an end run around the Constitution they are typically forced back in line by the Supreme Court. Personally I think at times the Federal Government acts like a petty dictator to the states. Anyone remember them witholding highways funds from L.a. because they had a lower drinking age?

Marc

4

Incidentally, I meant the 4th Amendment, not 5th. I would hope that the 5th is still sacrosanct.

5

I guesss you could say we are United under the constitution only.And not necessarily “we” are united, but the states are. like you said, my interpretation could be 180 degrees of what my neighbor, state, or SCOTUS interprets it, We are united that we all live under it and by it’s rules/allowances no matter what the current interpretation is… And although I feel united in my ideals with many, if not most, Americans. There are many (too many :)) out there that woudl fundamentaly dissagree with me on almost everything. What i think of as being an American citizen, and what another thinks of could be so different that there would be nothing in common as “citizens”. And to steal from another thread, We could be so opposite that I would call your way of thinking “unamerican”. And honestly accuse you of that under my definition of what is American, and I would be right, without just attempting to slander. For instance if you try to promote socialism, while I pride our country as being capitalist, I could think of that as unamerican. And visa-versa. And while I may be united with fellow citizens who like to salute the flag, I deffinately am not with those that like to burn it. And from my definition that would be unamerican. But not an unamerican citizen, if that makes sense.

YOu could say what devides us unites us. I wouldnt go that far. But what we have in common is what unites us. And we all are united by that document , whether you agree with the current interpretation or not we all have to go by the rules. And as far as state autonomy goes, well that was provided by the constitution.

6

As long as Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are on the bench, the 5th is just a collection of words waiting to be relegated to obscurity by the boys who claim to view the Constitution under Strict Construction and Original Intent.

7

Let’s take a look at the military. You’ve got individuals from different states, religons, economic backgrounds, and race. Just because people are different doesn’t mean they can’t unite in meaningful ways.

Marc

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF *

[QUOTE]

Firstly, let me say I like the cut of your jib, Airman. :slight_smile:

It’s cut and dried alright Good old LBJ sent the armed forces in to allow folks to vote.

Every state has different interpretations of the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Amendments to the Constitution, for instance. Some of you may claim state’s rights on that, but the fact remains that laws are not the same throughout the U.S. On that, I would hope, there can be no dispute.

[QUOTE]

The first ten (X) ammendments are the Bill of Rights. They were not ‘added’ to the Constitutution at some conventient later date. They are part of the 'truths we hold ’

It turns out nothing is self-evident. I’m right there with you if we have to fight for it.

9

I’m not going to try and re-format that last post.

My gist was the 1st, 2nd and 5th ammendments are part of the Bill of Rights.

I’m rather unhappy and upset that US folk don’t know them.

http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html

I’m stunned that the 4th and 6th ammendments aren’t mentioned.

(Our friend, Airman Doors, has temporarily surrendered those rights while he’s part of the Armed Forces.)

10

Uh-uh. The Bill of Rights were NOT part of the original Constitution. They were indeed “added later” because not enough states would accept the Constitution without an itemized Bill of Rights. They were written by James Madison and voted on by Congress in 1789, two years after the Constitutional Convention of 1787. (Trivia note: The original BOR numbered 12 amendments, but only 10 were adopted. One of the two “forgotten” amendments, which restricted Congressional pay raises, was finally ratified by enough states to be adopted in 1992, becoming the 27th Amendment.)

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#BOR