America's Sick Election System

[IrishEyes]

Not really, C1ay, but thanks for trying.

I think I'm asking more "why" than "how", if that makes sense. You mentioned that many of the states have conflicting laws. And that's a good thing, as each state has the opportunity to better reflect the will of its citizens with its laws. While citizens of one state may think something is ok, citizens of others may disagree. I guess I'm wondering "why" the 'federal' government gets to step in and say that certain things are ok (or not) when the citizens of a particular state may feel otherwise. Doesn't this go against the idea that each state has the authority to govern its own citizens?

I mean, I really do understand the how of it. I've just been thinking a lot about 'why' states have given so much power to the feds, when it seems to go against what the original intent of this country's founders had in mind. Or has the federal government just taken the power in most cases?

Or do I have that wrong as well?

[C1ay]

I guess I'm wondering "why" the 'federal' government gets to step in and say that certain things are ok (or not) when the citizens of a particular state may feel otherwise. Doesn't this go against the idea that each state has the authority to govern its own citizens?

I mean, I really do understand the how of it. I've just been thinking a lot about 'why' states have given so much power to the feds, when it seems to go against what the original intent of this country's founders had in mind. Or has the federal government just taken the power in most cases?

Or do I have that wrong as well?

I guess the key to "why" is Amendment X, i.e.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This effectively means that the Constitution declares what rights the United States has and the rest are left over to the states or the people. By ratifying amendments to the Constitution the states effectively yield certain rights to the United States. One example to consider is Amendment XIV:

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

 

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.......

otherwise known as the "Equal Rights Amendment" because of the first clause. It prevents any state from deciding that it is going to deny the privileges granted to the citizens at the federal level. If the US says you cannot enslave for instance, then a state cannot override that protected freedom because the state yielded the power to decide the rights of the citizens by ratifying the amendment in the first place.

 

Does that help any more?

[Qfwfq]

You have some good points Irish, and it somewhat transcends the specific case of the US. In essence it is a matter of why you are a federation and not one nation. The reason is historically clear but today you are certainly somewhat more united than in 1776.

Why are we 50 sovereign states (or commonwealths), and a country at the same time. I understand legally how it works, but I'm a little lost on why it is so. If the President represents the federation of 50 states, and the states are made up of people, then doesn't that make him a representative of the people?

No, it doesn't make hime a representative of the people but of the federation of states. If you look carefully at the US federal constitution, you easily see that it is a weighted federation of states, compromising between being 50 equal members and several million equal members.

 

And if we are truly sovereign, how can the federal government levy taxes and enforce laws?

If a sovereign state chooses to ratify a federal constitution, it is choosing a limitation. If you choose to marry a person and still claim the right to live and sleep with who you want, it ain't quite coherent, either one or the other.

 

And why are states not allowed to just back out of the federation? I know a few have tried (besides the Civil War). Hawaii comes to mind right now. But the government will not allow it. I know it's against the (federal) law to do so. But if we are sovereign states, why does the federal law hold more power than the law of the sovereign state?

Great point. I didn't know of it being against federal law to revoke ratification of the US Constitution. IMHO, it's a bit too fundamental to be just a federal law. It should either be a clause of the constitution when it was ratified, or ratified later as an amendment, or not valid. It's obvious however that a federation that has become somewhat strong will typically enforce the unfication. It happened after Yugoslavia separated too.

 

For laws not about the federal constitution itself, you ratified a constitution that specifies validity of federal law over states, you've accepted to accept federal law.

 

Concerning Texas, I think it joined the Southern Congregation, didn't it?

[Qfwfq]

The bulk of the laws in this country are state laws, laws which conflict with each other from one state to the next, but laws none-the-less which reflect the will of the people of each state. The boundaries between them are much more than arbitrary lines.

With people increasingly going from state to state and even having interests in more than one state, with increasing comunication in general, it can become harder to distinguish the will of the people of each state. Thus it can make sense to have more national laws in lieu of local ones.

 

Take also, as example, single countries which do have national and local authorities and laws. Here in Italy there is a great variety of local history, and plurality of tradition and mentality is still here, despite that the country was united by the Savoy kngdom conquering the rest. There is at least as much, if not more, difference in people across Italy than across the US. However, national law covers most important aspects of life and death. After the people voted in '48 to be a republic instead of a kingdom, the current constitution was written giving quite an increase in local authority and a few regions even have special autonomy on historic grounds.

 

Ensuing recent barking by the Northern League, there have been steps toward even more decentralization. Apart from the League's hard-liners though, most people are and have been quite content with the system of regions, provinces and municipalities.

[C1ay]

And why are states not allowed to just back out of the federation? I know a few have tried (besides the Civil War). Hawaii comes to mind right now. But the government will not allow it. I know it's against the (federal) law to do so. But if we are sovereign states, why does the federal law hold more power than the law of the sovereign state?

Article XIII of the Articles of Confedration states:

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

It would be possible for a state to withdraw with the approval of Congress and the legislatures of the states. It would be my guess that it would never happen though.

[niviene]

Oh it still thinks it is! Do you *know* anyone from Texas? (I mean *really* from Texas: Fish isn't, so he's normal).

 

All-horse-and-no-hat,

Buffy

 

 

Yea, Buffy - my mother!! :) And her father... my grandfather's brothers still live there (at least the one I know of who is still alive). I want to say Ennis? Which I think is near El Paso? I may have spelled it wrong, but when they talk about it, it sounds like that phonetically. It's been a long time since I looked it up. That's the one sliver of me that has native american roots.... I don't know much further back than my grandfather... when I was very young I met *his* mother, and I only remember her very fleetingly... she was a frail, petite woman with her hair in a bun always (it must have been very long). I have one picture of her and she is holding my baby sister - a very akward picture because she (my... great grandmother?) was so tiny - probably 100 pounds or less and shorter than 5 feet tall - holding this enormous fat Michelin baby who was born at 10 and a half pounds. So I'm not sure if my stubborn gregarious tendencies are because I have some Texan roots or if it's purely the Italian talking!! :) Whattsamatta fo' you, ahh?

[Boerseun]

Gotta chip in here:

 

I recall reading in a history book about the Southern States a while ago that Texas only agreed to join the union because they got the right to secede. And apparently they're the only State in the Union who has the right to form an independent country with a referendum.

 

Them bloody cowboys... :)

[C1ay]

Gotta chip in here:

 

I recall reading in a history book about the Southern States a while ago that Texas only agreed to join the union because they got the right to secede. And apparently they're the only State in the Union who has the right to form an independent country with a referendum.

 

Them bloody cowboys... :)

Nope. From Snopes:

 

Another Texas-related legend holds that the Texans negotiated an annexation treaty which reserved to them the right to secede from the Union without the consent of the U.S. Congress, but the terms of Texas' annexation contain no such provision.

 

and Narrative History of Texas Annexation:

When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty failed, the United States Congress passed--after much debate and only a simple majority--a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. Under these terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to divide into four additional states "of convenient size" in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government. (Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas' Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.)

[pgrmdave]

I believe that the best governing comes at the smallest level - Parents govern their children best, teachers govern their students best, and smaller governments govern better because they are best able to not become overly hung up on precedence. While a federal government makes a blanket law that governs people from small towns in Maine to sprawling cities in California, and may not make sense in all cases, a smaller government will better understand its people, and so be able to make laws which make more sense. The age at which one receives a liscense in New Jersey is 17, while in other states, it is as low as 14. Does that mean that one age is better than another? No, New Jersey is a densely populated state, where young drivers are more likely to be in difficult driving conditions with many people around. Having an older driving age makes sense, as it lowers the number of people who would be on the road, waits until they are a little more mature, and takes into consideration that in most of the state, it isn't necessary to have a car to travel, public transportation or walking will suffice.

 

If the federal government were to try to make a law dictating driving age, it would be too high in some places, and too low in others.

[Qfwfq]

If the federal government were to try to make a law dictating driving age, it would be too high in some places, and too low in others.

A parliament that has any sense will distinguish whether or not it makes sense to have the exact same thing every where, decide place by place, decide criteria from which the rule would follow for each place or leave it up to the more local authorities.

 

Concerning driving, in most European countries the age is at least 18, more for certain fast cars and large motorbikes. Small motorbikes can be ridden, according to engine size, at 14, 16 or 18. No matter how big some distances are in the states, I think 14 is a tad young for a full size car. If a 125 cc bike isn't enough, wouldn't it make more sense to have teen-ager cars?

[niviene]

I believe that the best governing comes at the smallest level...

 

While I agree with you here on some of the smaller things, I disagree when it comes to some of the larger things (human rights, I suppose, being one major category). As in, slavery - the north vs the south. Some people still today might find slavery "acceptable" in certain populations - and it doesn't matter who the enslaved people are - but imagine what that would do if in Chicago or LA there were millions of people who were so against slavery and then a place like Atlanta that might allow it... civil war all over again. I do agree that things such as punishments for crimes should be varied by populations (I mean, it is supposed to be the will of the people, right?) and I expect that would mean a lot of death row sentences carried out in Texas relative to other states; a lot less punishments enforced for things such as illegal immigration and the crimes stemming from that in places like Cali and Arizona; etc. I guess my point is that certain things should be regulated by the federal government, but smaller things such as "crimes against society" - like prostitution or gambling, driving ages, drinking ages, and even in my opinion suicide (I feel a person owns his or her own life and therefore death) should be left up to that particular state's population to decide - if they are crimes against "society" then that society should be able to say exactly what constitutes a crime against it; as well as that punishments for some federal crimes should be up to the people (even if I tend to disagree with some of the "softer" or more "lenient" punishments that many people are in favor of today) of that area. I personally believe in swift and severe punishments for repeat offenders; others feel that everyone can be "rehabilitated", even despite some data that shows, for example, that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is something like 80% of those caught.. probably higher including those not caught. Ability to change? Doesn't look like it.. but that doesn't rule out the remote possibility.... The federal government should allow us a way to step outside of a population, however, and seek justice for things like human rights - if a population decides that certain of people are unable to get their license at 16 like everyone else, then that is where the higher government should be able to step in and make sure the basic rules are still in check. If Utah wants to establish laws in accordance with their majority Mormon values (such as their laws pertaining to the sale and ingestion of alcohol - beer known to everyone there as "three two beer" meaning only 3.2% and below - no Arrogant Bastard ale there for Turtle... :)) then let them, as long as everyone else (the minority population) can live there freely with their basic rights unviolated.

 

What really bothers me, though, about this country (and I guess what I really should be talking about according to the thread title), is the difference between the electoral and popular votes. It has been explained to me in the past, and forgive me if I'm asking the same question again, but can anybody give me a good reason why the popular vote should not be the actual vote (when it comes to the presidency)?

[Fishteacher73]

I want to say Ennis? Which I think is near El Paso? I may have spelled it wrong, but when they talk about it, it sounds like that phonetically.

 

Its right south of Dallas.

[C1ay]

What really bothers me, though, about this country (and I guess what I really should be talking about according to the thread title), is the difference between the electoral and popular votes. It has been explained to me in the past, and forgive me if I'm asking the same question again, but can anybody give me a good reason why the popular vote should not be the actual vote (when it comes to the presidency)?

Did you read this post and the link it contains?

[questor]

how about these changes:

1. the government pays for the electoral process. after all it for the president of all the people

2.the speeches, debates, etc. are all on TV free as a public service

3.candidates chosen as now

4. each candidate allowed the same number of TV appearances

5. face to face debates in last 2 months of campaign. appearances morning and night

so all citizens can view. only 4 debates

6. debate material limited to defining an issue and offering a solution to it, along with the estimated cost of the program.

7. there will be a list of the most important issues of the day, with each candidate offering his solutions and estimated costs (refer to #6 above)

8. both candidates will be vetted for misfeasance, malfeasance and non-feasance during their life by a neutral committee. wives, children, and pets will have clean hands

9. after this vetting, no bombshells of past indescretions admitted unless proved to this committee. any false accusations or twisting of facts will be dealt with severely.

10. candidates will not be able to make promises to self interest groups that they can't deliver

just a few offerings-somewhat oversimplified-more later.

[questor]

the constitution does not say that all men are created equal. where that stupid notion came from i can't imagine. men (and women ) are created equal in the eyes of the law. there is a monumental difference in these two statements. take a look at your relatives, can you say they are equal? there is no equality in all of nature.

[C1ay]

the constitution does not say that all men are created equal. where that stupid notion came from i can't imagine.

It came from the Declaration of Independence which I would not personally refer to as a stupid notion.

 

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

[questor]

the quote is taken out of the context of previous statements. would you say you are the equal of Einstein, Trump, Hitler? would you not say that ''all men are created equal '' is

a stupid statement on the face of it?