More and more the current USSC has been upholding states’ rights vs. federal intervention - on the queer issues front we have sodomy laws, recognition of same-sex marriages, etc., and there are other things I’m sure folks could mention (even the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is under fire because it is seem by some as Federal Government intrusion onto states’ business).
Let’s say this trend continues, and states continue to gain “power” (for lack of a better term):
[ul][li]Would you move to another state if some, most or all of their laws were more to your liking? If it were the next state over? If it were across the country?[/li]
[li]Is there a forseeable polarization of similarly-opined states, i.e., the south becomes conservative and the north becomes liberal? Is this already true?[/li]
[li]Civil war any time soon?[/ul][/li]
Esprix
There are so many laws specific to one and only one state in this country. Not only would it be damn near impossible to memorize them all, but even if you did, you would come to one fairly obvious conclusion: some laws are better for you than others. You’ll never find a state where all the laws are to your liking. Obviously, gay rights is extremely important to you and that issue alone is enough to outweigh other possible “bad” laws in other areas.
Many people don’t feel that way. To a vast majority of people there isn’t a specific law, or set of laws, that is so biased against their particular lifestyle that they would consider up and moving to another state where life is better. They either aren’t that worked up over one particular issue or the current laws already favor the lifestyle they choose.
But even of those who feel wronged towards a particular state’s laws, how many would move because of it? How many would give up their family, their friends, their community, their job, any or all of the above, just because state X is friendly towards their particular lifestyle?
Wouldn’t it be more feasible, in most cases, to support a change in the laws, to lobby for that change, rather than uproot yourself?
My point is that for as many things as a person might want to see changed in their state, there are just as many who want things changed opposite you. For example, some people say anti-discrimination laws are good for the country, but many employers feel restrained by those laws, feeling they should be able to hire and fire at will without having to worry about getting sued under state or federal laws.
It’s more about “lifestyle” (oh, how I loathe that word), but rather it’s about whatever issues might be important to you, be they abortion, race, nuclear power, or your state bird. I’m wondering what issues are important to some people, and what issues might be important enough to make someone move.
It just seems that the argument (which is the way the USSC is leaning right now) that “it’s my state and we should be able to do what we want” will eventually lead to one state saying, “We do thing X,” another saying, “We do thing Y,” the federal government not having jurisdiction, and there being some kind of schism. Is this good for the country? Is it bad? What is the eventual outcome? Do people really care?
All these questions and more will be answered on the next episode of “As The Straight Dope Turns…”
Esprix, what sort of schism are you talking about? The two states in question (X and Y) are already completely autonomous when it comes to those actions. The division is already there, and that distinction has already been set in place by the Constitution (Article IV, as well as Article I Section 10). For quick reference: Constitution
I just realized how incredibly and awefully vague that response was.
Esprix, for the things in question (i.e. something that you see requiring federal intervention), the Feds can only intervene unless specifically mentioned in the Constitution or its Amendments. That you know. Then the question comes down to whether or not they (the event/issue in question) DO fall under these provisions. This also you know.
I don’t forsee states creating large riffs between them over issues like gay marriage, water rights (which actually might BE federally controlled), etc. Why? Because the states don’t really care.
Take Kansas City. Actually, take both of them. The Kansas side has lower taxes. The Missouri side has a bunch of jobs. Is the Missouri side going to invade Kansas to reclaim those workers, or make some threat to Kansas demanding that lost tax revenue? No. They find other things to do to attract residents - like build a bunch of casinos and say that only MO residents can work there. IT all evens out in the wash.
They also have stadiums which attract KS residents to purchase things on the MO side. MO still has to pay taxes on these though, so I suppose this evens out. Kinda sorta.
You can also tell with your eyes closed when you’ve passed over state line in your car. This will be evident by the metal plates your bump over in the road shrewdly put in place rather than filling in the damn pothole. Also, you’ll hear the scraping sounds of the two cars next to you as they take the paint off your car. MO roads seem to be about 4 feet in width.
Getting slightly back to the original topic…
Growth on the Kansas side is moving Southward. I wish I could tell you where these people were coming from, but I don’t know. Maybe KS, maybe MO, maybe both. But I can tell you that they move there because it’s new, it’s different, and the overall standard of living is much better than anywhere else. It isn’t for ideological reasons these people are moving, it’s monetary.
Getting even more back on topic…
Look, I suppose that if someone were absolutely addicted to hookers and deathly afraid of prison, they would probably move to the deserts of Nevada. I suppose that if someone absolutely had to have two wives, they’d move to Utah. I suppose that hated subsidies being given to farmers, they’d move to New Jersey. But most people just tend to suck it up and stick it out where they are. Wow, that sentence sounds so much sicker than I intended it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Esprix *
**
[ul][li]Would you move to another state if some, most or all of their laws were more to your liking? If it were the next state over? If it were across the country?[/li]
[li]Is there a forseeable polarization of similarly-opined states, i.e., the south becomes conservative and the north becomes liberal? Is this already true?[/li]
[li]Civil war any time soon?[/ul]**[/li][/QUOTE]
Yes. I currently rent an apartment in Maryland. As soon as I am in the position to buy a house, I am definately moving to Virginia. Maryland is over-regulated, over-taxed, and riddled with big-government Democrats determined to poke their noses into the minutiae of citizens’ lives. Virginia looks like Canaan to me.
I think self-regulatory feedback mechanisms will prevent the dichotomy that does exist from widening to an unmanageable level. By ‘feedback mechanisms’ I am mainly talking about votes and the tendency for people to head back toward the political center when they feel a state’s legislative body is heading too far in the wrong direction. I think an current example of this is what is happening in Vermont. Courts also provide a corrective influence. By ‘unmanageable’ I mean that which would lead to:
Civil War. No.
Personally, I am glad there are obvious differences between many of the states. I see this as healthy. People have the option of living in a more ideologically compatible area; or, for the contrarians, reveling in standing out and trying to effect a change.
If a state decriminalized marijuana use, I would probably move there if I could find a decent job in my line of work there. Though I do everything I can to minimize my risk of getting caught (only buy from dealers who deliver, never carry on me more than I can eat, etc.) if I could eliminate the threat of prosecution entirely, I would.
If a State decriminalized marijuana use, it wouldn’t help, because it’s still a crime under Federal law.
California tried to decriminalize marijuana for medical purposes a few years ago, with Proposition 215, and the Federal Attorney General clamped down on 'em real fast.