Would you make this compromise? To unite country.)

In My Humble Opinion
1

(I must preface my remarks by saying I am not an American, I’m a Canadian. Canadians have a rare view on all things American. Please be gentle.)

The country is so divided, there seems little hope either side is suddenly going to warm to the other. The current administration certain doesn’t look even slightly interested in bringing people together. In some ways they seem intent on stirring more conflict. Understandably, people are concerned, all over the world, about where this all might lead.

I’ve been wondering lately if it would really be such a terrible thing to let the states have the rights they desire. So if Texas wants to make abortion illegal they can. They don’t want trans protection laws, also okay. Monetize education? Repeal ACA, etc.

It’s a drag for people living in Texas, I suppose, but they could shift states. It’s a hardship, it’s true, but that might be addressed in other ways. Having to go to another state for a medical procedure is a hardship that might be easier to overcome, with clever funding, than changing minds in Texas.

The states that want, socialized education, immigrants, not for profit prisons, protected lands, bank regs, etc, could do so.

And it would play out, however it will. Some places will thrive, some may not. But that’s how it is anyway, it seems to me.

I do understand there will be some thorny issues left on the table like climate change, but again, if the animosity were severely reduced perhaps some mid ground could be found on even that.

Of course, they can’t reinstate slavery, or child brides etc. But on the issues that divide the nation so fully, perhaps it’s a way forward? Time will pass, perhaps animosity will die down, and, in the fullness of time, citizens can begin to find common ground again.

I look forward to your thoughts on this suggestion.

2

Moved from Elections to Great Debates.

[/moderating]

3

No, at least for issues related to civil rights or bodily autonomy. But I’m willing to work on shared goals, even for these issues – for example, there are plenty of things that reduce the need and number of abortions that pro-choice people support.

4

In the long run, I think that a certain political supply and demand would set in - people who want access to abortions could move to those states, and people who want laxer oil-drilling regulations could move to those states too.

5

No. You can’t unite a country by promoting entrenchment of polarized society.

Recall how we tried it in Canada by allowing a referendum on Quebec independence. Fortunately, people voted for a united Canada, even in Quebec.

6

I think it would be easier for large industries and social interest groups to go state-to-state and overturn laws by and flooding the smaller market with propaganda, going one to the next state with a slightly retooled campaign. Local “AstroTurf” groups would be created, then disappear once the law was changed to their satisfaction.
Imagine two football teams, where one side would have the advantage of using their entire team against a single player at a time.

7

I’m not talking separation, so I don’t think that’s an apt comparison.

I agree it’s not ideal, but its a way forward. Yes, people will make choices on things like environmental degradation and access to education, etc. Let them. They do now, by all accounts, didn’t places pull out of states that passed restrictive laws? The world did not end.

It means accepting that abortion is still legal, nearby and we’ll help you to afford it access it. That’s not denying people access entirely, yes there is some hardship I agree. You must be aware, from the get go, this service isn’t available where you live, after all. It’s not a sudden surprise. If you’re gay in Texas, and can’t hack the culture, move to New York, you’re not in Tehran after all. Again, yes, there ARE hardships but not insurmountable ones, it seems to me.

When the deep divisions begin to heal. And when, possibly, people aren’t moving to a state, or actively moving out, investment is down, then it will be time to reopen the discussion again.

Y’know, let them come to it on there own, as it were. If you’re confident that’s how it will play out then what’s the problem?

(I didn’t want a great debate, to be honest. I wanted opinions. Even from those who never venture into GD!)

8

This assumes the left/right has or could have a live and let live attitude instead of adhering to moral universalism. Given their behavior and beliefs, this seems unlikely. The divide is urban/rural, most states are purple. Pollution doesn’t respect political boundaries.

9

Things aren’t so black and white - or red and blue. This poll from 2013 says only 38% of people in Texas think restriction on abortion should be more strict. And 26% think it should be LESS strict.

10

I see no benefit from this approach. Time may heal these divisions, but it will heal them whether or not one side gives up on an issue nation-wide. I’m not willing to give up on issues that affect so many people, including in states in which their position might be in the minority.

11

Friend of mine years ago said that social progress never came to the South without federal boots on the ground. I resisted that at first, citing all the homegrown civil rights leaders we have down here. But when I thought about it more, I realized what he meant: our civil rights leaders only succeeded by convincing politicians outside of the South to send help.

So, no. I’m not willing to abandon transgender folk and women with unwanted pregnancies and gay folk and black folk and undocumented immigrants to the whims of our shitty local leaders. That compromise is a non-starter.

12

To a certain extent, you’re just talking about Federalism, which I am in favor of. But I think you are confused on a lot of issues. Every state currently has “socialized education” and not because the federal government mandates it. Any state that wants for-profit prisons can do so now, they don’t need permission from the federal government. States cannot and could not limit “immigrants” a we’re all one country and you can’t institute border controls. Trans protection laws, too, are not mandated by the federal government (yet).

Really, the only issue you mention that is mandated is abortion rights, and that’s only been in the last 40-50 years.

13

? - I thought Quebec voted for independence, but it was outvoted by the rest of Canada, albeit just barely (51-49 in the end, unless I am thinking of a different vote).

As for the original idea, this effectively allows white supremacy in the southern states that want it. This isn’t about to happen any time soon.

14

Even though it could take you decades to get another R vs W decision after Don stacks his court?

You’d be willing to sacrifice abortions, and rights for gays, for the whole country, rather than see it denied in only a few states?

That seems not smart to me.

15

If Roe were overturned, states would still be free to make abortion legal. It would be exactly what you are proposing in your OP.

Abortion was already legal in many states prior to Roe, and the trend was towards liberalization at the state level. Certain states would keep it illegal, but most would not.

16

Constitutional rights are a federal issue, full stop. If something is identified as a constitutionally guaranteed civil right, it may not be abridged or infringed by any government, federal, state or local.

Now of course, the Supremes haven’t been and are not going to be completely fixed and unvarying for all time on the interpretation of exactly what qualifies as a constitutionally guaranteed civil right. But insofar as stable judicial interpretations do exist at any given time, it’s unconstitutional and absolutely unacceptable for state governments to try to deny them or override them. That is not a compromise that can be made, at least not without radically changing the Constitution.

(Disclaimer: IANAL but constitutionally guaranteed individual rights are pretty bedrock law, AFAICT.)

17

I think the point is that many of BIG issues that divide us are not constitutional issues, per se, but SCOTUS interpretations of the constitution. What one SCOTUS giveth, another SCOTUS can take away. But I think the OP has some serious gaps in his knowledge about the US government, how it is set up, and how it works.

18

No. The referendum was Quebec-only. Doing otherwise would have made no sense. :confused:

They keep voting pro-separation parties into power, but voted against separation when the referenda actually happened. The 1995 one was closer than the 1980 one, but neither of them were pro-separation.

19

Yes, the OP does have some serious gaps. Trans protection, etc.

SHE is a Canadian,( as stated clearly in the OP. )

Are you saying R vs W *can’t * be reversed? Gay rights? By a new Supreme Court?

Or, the states can individually still have abortion, if they wish? Even if it’s outlawed? If so, what’s wrong with them NOT having abortion if they so choose?

20

Hey, Trans rights, right? :slight_smile:

Before Roe, abortion was a matter left to the states. Roe made it unconstitutional to ban abortions. If Roe is overturned, that won’t make abortions illegal at the federal level, it will just revert to the way it was before-- up to the individual states to decide. “Gay Rights” doesn’t really have a meaning in the US, If you mean the right to marry, that would be just like Roe. It was up to the states to decide before the SCOTUS weighed in, and it would be up to the states again if the decision were overturned.

You’d need a constitutional amendment to ban abortion or SSM in the US. Neither of those would be able to pass.