Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#41

Post by nickthemagicman »

scarface74 wrote: post #34
DoreenMichele wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to comply with HN guidelines and not be snarky here, but, to my ears, that sounds an awful lot like "Now that the states are the bitches of the federal government, they don't need a voice at all." And that doesn't remotely sound like a democratic system to me. It sounds pretty tyrannical.

Knowing the history and the current makeup of the south outside of large metropolitan areas like Atlanta, “states rights” should frighten anyone who is any type of minority.

The nice thing about states rights is that there were actually states to fight it. Think if slavery had been sanctioned on a federal level?

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#43

Post by mnm1 »

rz2k wrote: post #29
hackeraccount wrote: post #22

It should be noted that this effects the House as well as the Senate. Federalism is ingrained in the US Constitution. The degree to which power has flowed to DC is something that's happened despite the Constitution not because of it. There's a line in the Constitution that says everything that's not explicitly granted to the Federal government is in the hands of the State governments. Think about that. Can anyone nam…

My guesses offhand would be marriage licenses, birth and death certificates. States register real estate and collect property taxes, and you need a state to allow you to incorporate a business.

You can do all these things in D.C., however so they are not the exclusive rights of states.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#44

Post by ende »

aclimatt wrote: post #25
DanAndersen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I assume you're referring to the Senate and not the House, which does do somewhat population-based apportionment) The two-assembly structure exists because it was a compromise to not give the densely-populated states all the power in the new Republic. Crucially , this sort of compromise was important because it helped the less-populated states get on board with the whole "federal government" concept without fearing…

Correct. However one of the key differences is that when the Republic was established, per the Constitution, States' Rights were a primary aspect of legislation. The federal government had very little power and very few laws compared to today. Most laws existed on a state-by-state basis. The USA of the late 1700s was really more like the EU than it is today. And that's why New Hampshire needed senators. New Hampshire…

“most laws in the US are now enacted on a federal level”

That’s simply not factually true.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#46

Post by malcolmgreaves »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #41
scarface74 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing the history and the current makeup of the south outside of large metropolitan areas like Atlanta, “states rights” should frighten anyone who is any type of minority.

The nice thing about states rights is that there were actually states to fight it. Think if slavery had been sanctioned on a federal level?

It was sanctioned at the federal level for nearly 100 years.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#47

Post by jmole »

jadell wrote: post #37
DoreenMichele wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I don't know what you mean. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit?

"States' rights" is used as a dogwhistle in the United States for supporting legally protected racial, sexual, and religious discrimination. [edit] In many political circles. In the antebellum era of US history it was used to excuse and defend slavery, and later, Jim Crow laws and segregation. There is a legitimate need for states to protect their rights, but that's not how the phrase has been used historically.

It's also the reason California can pass a net neutrality law. Two sides to every coin.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#48

Post by rz2k »

mnm1 wrote: post #43
rz2k wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guesses offhand would be marriage licenses, birth and death certificates. States register real estate and collect property taxes, and you need a state to allow you to incorporate a business.

You can do all these things in D.C., however so they are not the exclusive rights of states.

I understand why one would think that the federal government does these things, but the District of Columbia and other analogs to state governments do generally serve these purposes. There are things like a "Consular Report of Birth Abroad" in some cases for children of military service members. I guess it depends on the spirit of the question and definition of what constitutes "anything that a State government can do that the Federal government can't".

Generally speaking, I get the impression that most people dramatically underestimate the role of state and local government authorities in their daily lives.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#49

Post by hackeraccount »

rz2k wrote: post #29
hackeraccount wrote: post #22

It should be noted that this effects the House as well as the Senate. Federalism is ingrained in the US Constitution. The degree to which power has flowed to DC is something that's happened despite the Constitution not because of it. There's a line in the Constitution that says everything that's not explicitly granted to the Federal government is in the hands of the State governments. Think about that. Can anyone nam…

My guesses offhand would be marriage licenses, birth and death certificates. States register real estate and collect property taxes, and you need a state to allow you to incorporate a business.

Clearly the federal government asserts a fair amount of control over marriage - See DOMA or Obergefell but beyond that, do you think congress couldn't pass a law creating a national marriage license? Or say a minimum marriage age?

I wouldn't argue that the Federal government doesn't delegate a lot of things to the States - see Medicaid - but that's not the same thing as the States doing something only because they can do it.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#50

Post by megaman22 »

hackeraccount wrote: post #49
rz2k wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guesses offhand would be marriage licenses, birth and death certificates. States register real estate and collect property taxes, and you need a state to allow you to incorporate a business.

Clearly the federal government asserts a fair amount of control over marriage - See DOMA or Obergefell but beyond that, do you think congress couldn't pass a law creating a national marriage license? Or say a minimum marriage age? I wouldn't argue that the Federal government doesn't delegate a lot of things to the States - see Medicaid - but that's not the same thing as the States doing something only because they ca…

We really need to step back and take a hard look at what the federal government is constitutionally allowed to stick their fingers in and what they do. One way or another, that discrepancy ought to get ironed out
Post reply on HN