States actually have a bit more power than most realize. The states could dissolve the federal government. By holding a new constitutional convention anything is possible in a new document.
And due to history I’m not sure how feasible it is to get rid of states. At least with legal mechanisms.
Right. There’s no reasonable path from today’s system to a unitary one, save the States themselves choosing to go that route, which isn’t going to happen.
Personally, I think that the primary things that need addressing from a Federal level are to restrict/eliminate gerrymandering for political purposes, and the electoral college needs reform, if not outright abolition.
The problem is that it would either take a series of Federal court cases, or a constitutional amendment to define the rules for how electoral districts are drawn. An amendment is extremely unlikely, and the court cases would almost have to be centered around civil rights or something else along those lines that could reach into the states’ electoral processes and force them to comply. Otherwise, you might end up with good, non-gerrymandered Federal districts and the same weirdness at the state level that we already have.
Electoral college reform would be easier in concept, but harder in execution. Amendments are extremely unlikely, and it’s harder to prove anyone’s rights are being violated by the electoral college. But it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to just tie electors to congressional districts (i.e. you’re voting for an elector in a specific district, not a statewide slate), and have the senators of each state be “at-large” and be elected following the overall statewide popular vote. That would give you something much more similar to the popular vote, but without all the trouble of abolishing the EC.
There’s also the proposed “Wyoming rule”. Use the population of the smallest state to establish the quotient for distribution of seats in the House of Reps. That would change the EV to make it more representative, without a constitutional amendment. Still wouldn’t make the EV vote purely proportional, because the Senate seats would still provide over-representation for the smaller states, but it would help.
This isn’t quite right. It’s true that the federal Parliament has a residual power under the POGG power, but the provinces also have a residual power under s. 92(16) “matters of a local and private nature”. The impact of the two clauses is that the courts have to work out whether something that is not expressly enumerated is more aptly considered a federal matter, by comparison to the subjects in the federal list, or more aptly a provincial matter, by comparison to the subjects in the provincial list.
Health care delivery is a good example. There’s no express reference to health care in s. 92, as an area of provincial power. The SCC has held that provincial jurisdiction over health care delivery flows from s. 91(16).
Taking your examples, the Criminal law is acrtually an express federal power, so it’s not dependant on POGG. Securities regulation is not listed in the provincial powers, but has been held to be implicit in provincial jurisdiction over “property and civil rights”. Even though not expressly stated in s. 92, it’s not picked up by POGG in s. 91.
Oh I definitely think if you were going to rebuild the US system from scratch, having states with wildly different populations wouldn’t make sense, and deference to the states in the form of things like the electoral college would be a mistake.
As I said I don’t think our constitution does naturally give the bulk of power to the federal government. I think it’s good to have state governments have a role in things like education, police etc. in a country as big as the US where the gap between just local and central government would so big that a lot of administrative stuff would get weird, but if the federal government wants to regulate or outlaw something, they should basically be able to (and they basically are whenever they want to in our system). I don’t think states rights need apply to stuff like abortion.
I think I would still have the states be able to have their own taxes and not let the feds compel state spending. I’m not really sure where I would draw the line at the end of the day.
Of course, there would need to be local administration, simply due to obstacles of size and distance. But I’m frankly concerned about things like education and policing. What we have now allows for different experiences, treatment, and outcomes, for citizens in those areas depending on where one is and the local control.
See the recent ginned up controversy on teaching “Critical Race Theory”, the return of book burning, and discussion of Evolution in the past. Taking it to an illogical extreme, what if a State decides that it doesn’t want it’s citizens learning Math, because numbers are Arabic, or 666 is the sign of the divil? As a nation, do we want local differences in our citizens education?
This is the big concern. I think the Federal government shouldn’t be setting the entire school agenda, but there should at least be some required minimums. A basic understanding of science, math, and history, as well as functional literacy, is important in a democratic society. People can’t make good decisions if they’ve never even been given a chance to learn the basic tools of how to think and arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
You could extend this to other issues. Like, with healthcare, there should at least be minimum coverage for things like accidents. Maybe you have a ideological opposition to helping people who are overweight or alcoholics, or some other type of problem that “they brought on themselves”, but someone who just got hit by a bus didn’t do anything to deserve being bankrupted.
Why do you assume that the federal government will do things better? If it’s controlled by a party that doesn’t believe in higher education standards or better health care coverage, then that sets the policy for the entire country.
For education specifically, I’d be in favor of the feds being allowed to just set education standards without having to tie everything to federal funding the way they do now, although at least thus far everyone wants the federal money so the federal funding requirements wind up amounting to a mandate in practice.
For a lot of the other stuff (abortion, healthcare, etc.), the federal government is already allowed to pass regulations that supersede the states if they want to it’s not really a structural issue. Policing is a bit weird (a lot of the departmental regulations are still just tied to federal funding I believe), but the feds have the power to do what they did with Chauvin and effectively regulate by trying cops as individuals when they go against federal standards.
The larger the government is, and the more people involved in selecting that government, the harder it is for one faction to take it over completely.
There’s a reason the creationists focused on taking over local school boards in friendly places, rather than the federal Department of Education.
It’s not a guarantee, of course. Trump proved that if you have enough idiots you can screw up anything. But on average, it’s harder.
That is one interesting critique of state standards for education. But then you have states that decide to rid themselves of objective standards in the name of racial ‘equity.’ I’m not sure how federalizing that counterproductive idea would be an improvement over it being a left coast feature.
Yes, there are definitely vastly opposing views on what would be the direction that a one-size-fits-all approach would take. The devil in the details would be constructing what would be the baseline, and what would be allowed for localized differences.
For example, rural farming areas would benefits from including subjects on animal husbandry and agriculture, whereas those would not be pertinent for downtown Philadelphia.
I didn’t say “one size fits all”, I said, “maintain minimum standards”. Local schools could choose to teach more than the minimum, if they wanted. That allows the tailoring you suggest:
…while ensuring that students in both rural areas and cities can at least understand basic math, the fundamentals of science, and be able to read, so they can at least have a chance at continued learning on their own.
Look at what we see in this pandemic. How are we ever going to end this thing, when a large minority of the US population is simply incapable of understanding even the simple math that shows vaccination is effective? This isn’t calculus, or even algebra, it’s literally just comparing percentages of different populations, and yet, even on this board, we see people who can’t wrap their heads around it.
This is not good for society, or democracy.
I didn’t suggest that you did. I was attempting to charitably respond to the assertions of octopus that seemed to suggest that.