posted
okay before I get flamed here, I'm just quoting what a friend of mine heard a class mate say when he was copying my friends anwser during a lab.
I can understand how this point can be arguable if you look at it from the angle of each state being is own separate country united only be the constitution and the articles of Confederation?
For example during the civil war despite technically Kentucky being a part of the Union they declared themselves as neutral symbolizing their soverign rights as a state if not quite a nation-state.
To what degree are the powers of the states within the Union these days and to what extent is the USA and the states within it a country or countries?
IP: Logged |
posted
STates rights are dead. The civil war killed them. Whatever the way it should be, the side that said states are not self-determining had more guns and more men.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's still a muted ongoing debate on the discussion of what matters should be decided nationally and what matters should be decided by individual states.
On the whole though, kat is right. Either way I don't know how that makes the United States not a country, unless you mean in the sense that a country can't be made up of 50 individual countries?
I don't think states' rights are dead, but they're certainly in a coma.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand, states in the US still have more self-governing powers than states in other federal systems (well, than in Australia, at least *grin*.)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even on matters that states have the right to decide, the federal government can just withold funding if it feels strongly enough to object. Such as the drinking age of 21.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example during the civil war despite technically Kentucky being a part of the Union they declared themselves as neutral symbolizing their soverign rights as a state if not quite a nation-state.
As has already been mentioned, the Civil War was the last time in history that such a thing was even possible. States today have the right to regulate internal matters only--and not even all internal matters--and cannot make war or peace independent of the federal government. Notice that no so-called "blue states" have even attempted to declare neutrality in the Iraq situation? That's because they can't.
I suppose an argument could be made that the United States was a confederation of countries rather than a single nation before the Civil War--though in my opinion, it wouldn't be a very strong case. But as for today, no such case could be made. The United States is a country, and the states are political subdivisions thereof, not sovereign nations.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before the Constitution was created and ratified, the US literally was a confederation of independent states.
And several blue state legislatures have passed resolutions against the war I believe, just as several red states have passed resolutions supporting it. They just don't really mean much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'd like to point out that whatever state's rights that exist will be ignored as long as the states suckle up to the fed big purse.
For example, the States have the right to set thier own speed limits on roads. However, in the 1980's the Federal Goverment said, "You want fed $ for highways, you have to limit the speed on those higways to 55mph."
Every state did so in exchange for $$.
The states have the right to control how they educate thier own children. However, the Fed says, "If you want our $ you have to comply with the NCLB".
Now some states are seriously considering if the $ they so slavishly went after are enough to pay for the changes that NCLB demands.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I could change ten things in our laws, one would be to make it explicitly unconstitutional for the federal government to interfere with state's business in that way.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, Massachusetts is a commonwealth, too. I did not know Virginia also claims that distinction. Just looked it up on the Internet. Sure enough. And what, exactly, difference does it make?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are all of the 50 states either states or commonwealths, or is there another type as well? And which ones are which?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tresopax, Massachusetts is a commonwealth, too. I did not know Virginia also claims that distinction. Just looked it up on the Internet. Sure enough. And what, exactly, difference does it make?
And here I thought that Massachussetts and California were People's Republics. Huh.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I can understand how this point can be arguable if you look at it from the angle of each state being is own separate country united only be the constitution and the articles of Confederation?
The Articles? Why in God's green earth would you invoke that pile of garbage?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
can you explain in a civil manner whats wrong with the articles?
IP: Logged |
quote:Even on matters that states have the right to decide, the federal government can just withold funding if it feels strongly enough to object. Such as the drinking age of 21.
I've always found these kinds of restrictions to be in deep opposition to the spirit of the Constitution. I would like to see the budgets of the states and federal governments to be almost flipped. I want the people controlling the majority of the public resources in this country to be less remote from the populace.
One thing few appreciate: the states have the general police power; outside federal enclaves (territories, D.C., military bases, Indian reservations, post offices, and the like) the federal government does not.
In the last century, the interstate commerce clause and the tax and spend clause have combined to give the federal government something very close to the police power. Recent (since the 90s) SCOTUS decisions have begun to reign that in a little bit.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: One thing few appreciate: the states have the general police power; outside federal enclaves (territories, D.C., military bases, Indian reservations, post offices, and the like) the federal government does not.
posted
The FBI does not, in fact exercise the police power (as used in my post, a term of art which is explained in the associated link). We haven't gone that far yet.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: can you explain in a civil manner whats wrong with the articles?
The short list, from a fuzzy memory: No central government power to tax (and I mean none), no common currency, no federal-level executive, no centralized military, and changes required a unanimous vote by the states.
quote:"And here I thought that Massachussetts and California were People's Republics. Huh"
Not so much California, with its huge diversity, and the Terminator for governor (though admittedly he is a closet liberal). I once read that if CA were an independent country, it would have the fifth largest GNP in the world.
But Massachusetts, definitely! The two senators are John Kerry and Edward (a.k.a. Ted) Kennedy, true leftists if ever there were any. There has got to be something wrong with Massachusettsians who keep voting for those extremists! I can't help but think back to the statement made by William F. Buckley Jr., after Richard Nixon defeated George McGovern in 1972 in the most one-sided vote in presidential election history, where only Massachusetts and Washington D.C. went for McGovern--something to the effect that the nation needed to mount a massive re-education effort to rehabilitate the benighted denizens of that hapless and clueless commonwealth. (He wrote off D.C. as hopelessly corrupted by the presence of the federal government.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The FBI does not, in fact exercise the police power (as used in my post, a term of art which is explained in the associated link). We haven't gone that far yet.
I read the link. Are you saying that the FBI can't use violence to coerce people into obeying the law? That's kind of novel.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: okay before I get flamed here, I'm just quoting what a friend of mine heard a class mate say when he was copying my friends anwser during a lab.
He didn't happen to say America isn't a country did he? That would make more sense, be correct, and would allow for an understandible misquote.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I read the link. Are you saying that the FBI can't use violence to coerce people into obeying the law? That's kind of novel.
First, my original post used the term "general police power." The federal government does not have the general police power outside the contexts I mentioned. This is as close to a fact as you can get in constitutional law, although the boundaries are, of course, often debated.
Second, at most, the FBI is one agency by which the coercive aspect of the federal government's police power may be exercised. The FBI is specifically not exercising the police power, but rather is one tool of many by which the federal government exercises the coercive element of the police power it does have.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Terminator is not a closet liberal, he was just forced to govern in a bipartisan manner because his special election was shot down so badly by California voters. Personally, I would like to see that kind of cooperation at the national level.
And excuse me, but there's something wrong with people who vote for Democrats/leftists? That's ridiculous beyond words; people have the right to vote for whoever they want, if the candidate represents the peoples' views, and that does not mean there's something wrong with them.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
. . . and Taxachussetts recently elected a conservative Mormon for governor. Lots of people are still scratching my heads over that one.
At any rate, there are other “sovereign” nations within the USA that are not states. I’m talking about the Native American tribes. I’m not really clear how all this works on a governance level. I do know that a tribe can decide to adopt gambling and the state the reservation is in has no say so in the matter - even if that state does not allow gambling. There are also different tax rules on the reservation.
So we have nations within states within a Nation. All claiming some kind of sovereignty. Sometimes it may seem like a big juggling act bordering on chaos, but still, the big experiment has worked pretty dang good so far and has produced the most prosperous country the world has ever seen. Go figure.
Here is another interesting thing. I don’t know when it changed but the two senators from each state used to be chosen by the state legislatures and got their paychecks from the state. Now they are elected by popular vote, just like the House of Representatives folks, and they get their overt dough and perks from the general trough.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samuel Bush: while they are sovereign nations, they are not states. They have no separate foreign policy or similar, and little authority beyond that granted by the federal government (though some of that granting is due to provisions in the Constitution).
In a political science sense, the US is a state, but not a nation (at least, under most definititions of nation). There isn't really a solid political science sense of nation, but the native american tribes meet most proposed definitions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technaicalities aside, the US is a very patriotic country and most people, from any state, refer to themselves as American, so it's a country.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:One thing few appreciate: the states have the general police power; outside federal enclaves (territories, D.C., military bases, Indian reservations, post offices, and the like) the federal government does not.
And not even all of them. Only those which were formally "ceded" to the Federal Government by the State. DC was ceded to the Feds by the State of Virgina. Fort Benning was ceded by the State of Georga. Absent an act of cesion, the state maintains police powers. And, some acts of cesion they reserve police power, or establish a joint juristiction.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax, Massachusetts is a commonwealth, too. I did not know Virginia also claims that distinction. Just looked it up on the Internet. Sure enough. And what, exactly, difference does it make?
Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky all officially refer to themselves as "commonwealths" rather than "states".
So what's the difference? Spelling and pronunciation.
quote:can you explain in a civil manner whats wrong with the articles?
They were replaced by the Constitution in 1788 and have not had legal validity since. They are no longer a part of U.S. law on any level.
quote:He didn't happen to say America isn't a country did he? That would make more sense, be correct, and would allow for an understandible misquote.
Except that "America" has always been a shorthand for "United States of America" and, when used by itself in the modern era, can only refer to the country of that name. I know a lot of people just love to argue that the word "America" refers to an entire continent, but that hasn't been true for centuries. America is a country, North America is the continent it is on, and the Americas refers to the entire landmass that contains both that continent and South America.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Verily the Younger, what is Mexico? It is not Central America--that begins south of Mexico. The U.S. and Canada of course we are used to thinking of as North America. It seems odd to say Mexico is a part of North America. But either we do that, or else we just call Mexico "America." Indeed, by that reasoning, Mexico is the only country it is proper to refer to simply as "America." You do follow my logic, here, don't you? Mexicans are the true Americans! Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Kat (and Mr. P.H.), don't you see how weird it is to call that hot, dry land south of the Rio Grande North America? Take a poll, and see how many people think Mexico is a part of North America. (Of course it is, but how many think it is?)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many people perceive it to be that way? How many Mexicans think they are a part of North America?
Canadians don't like to call themselves North Americans (ask them). And they're further north than we Yankees are. Imagine how Mexicans must balk at being called North Americans!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Take a poll, and see how many people can even point out Mexico on a world map.
Well, true, point taken. Americans are notoriously poor in geography. But that is kind of the point, isn't it?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a foolish arguement. People do not typically identify with geographical boundaries so much as political or cultural ones.
I don't go around saying I'm Asian because that's where I grew up. I don't say, I live in North America or the Northern Hemisphere, or The West.
I've never heard anyone say, "I'm from Europe." Most people skip those vague distinctions and go to a more specific label that is more important to them.
Geographers put Mexico in North America. Culture has nothing to do with it. We are as different from Mexico as Indonesians are from Mongolians, but they are both in "Asia."
Not only that, Mexico USED to own a HUGE chunk of present day America up to almost Oregon, so it's not as if they are our distant neighbors.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
okay before I get flamed here, I'm just quoting what a friend of mine heard a class mate say when he was copying my friends anwser during a lab. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
