Can we convince Obama to give more state's more control?

I definatly believe in giving the states more control. Every state is so different and has different people in it, why should the federal government have the same set of rules for all of them. What’s the point in having a state government if you dont let them do anything?

I think giving the State’s back more control would be great, do I think we can convince Obama of this? Nope. I am originally from Oregon but am currently in Utah, Utah seems to have a lot of control as a state, obviously we are a Republican state, I wonder how this will effect us.

I’m for State’s rights but there are some things that should be regulated by the Federal government.

One example is that gay marriage should be decided by an amendment to the U.S. constitution. If you leave it up to individual states then we arrive at a condition where some states allow it and some don’t. Then, say it was allowed in Massachusetts and a gay married couple moved from there to say Oregon where it might not be allowed.

While in Oregon one of the couple gets sick and is hospitalized. The hospital doesn’t have to allow the “spouse” visitation rights because they are not related by blood or marriage according to Oregon law.

The problem is that this violates provisions in the U.S. Constitution which mandate that states honor each other states actions. Therefore Oregon should honor Massachusetts marital agreement. But how could Oregon honor Massachusetts marital agreement while at the same time denying marriage between Oregon’s own gay citizens?

Things like schools should be part of state’s rights. But things that effect the benefits and rights of people traveling among the states should be controlled by the Federal government.

    I hope you do not take offense,
    To that that's gone before;
    'Tis only that it's my two-cents,
    And not one penny more. §;o)

It depends. Our Articles of Confederation gave states much more rights than they have under our constitution but this proved unworkable. Our civil war was fought over state’s rights. The South favoring a weaker federal governent and more autonomous states and the North favoring a stronger federal government. The 14th ammendment further diminshed states rights by preventing states from having laws that infringe on any citizen’s rights guaranteed under the federal constitution. For example a state can not have a law that abridges a citizen’s rights under the Bill of Rights.

When someone mentions state’s rights my first question is what right they wish to exercise. For example if some state decided that they would no longer recognise marriages between interracial couples I’d say that is a right they should not have.

I doubt it. Democrats are not generally supporters of states’ rights, and I haven’t seen anything about Obama to suggest otherwise. All his plans involve even more federal government.

The Libertarians and Constitution Party seem to be the only ones who even care about states’ rights anymore.

There is no rational argument to be made regarding a federal interest in pot or gay marriage for example, yet these seem to be at the top of the national agenda. We are the Borg. Resistance is futile.

State’s Rights (who are closer to the people they govern than the Federal Government) is one of the strongest Republican draws for me. As you pointed out each state and each region are different, their needs, interests and concerns are different. In twenty-five years living in Florida we had 2 droughts, water is prevelent. In Arizona and other western states, it is an everyday concern. The only place I’ve visited who are more diverse than the U.S. is Indonesia. It encompasses 500 cultures, all the way from a very metropolitan Jakarta where people live in beautiful townhouses, drive Mercedes and work in 50 story modern, glass buildings to Papua where people live in grass huts, are dressed only in penis sheaths and are still conducting tribal warfare with bows and arrows.

I have always believed the state should provide most of the “government” and laws. We do not need big government, and it is one of my disagreements with the Democratic party. We should definitely not restrict state’s rights, and we should definitely not grow big federal government.

toadaly, I consider marriage to be a civil rights issue that the federal government should have jurisdiction over. Let’s say that some backward southern state decided that they would not allow interracial marriage and even passed a law that said that their state would not recognize interracial marriages granted by other states. Wouldn’t you consider that to be a civil rights issue? I view gay marriage the same way. Some day in the future I hope the federal government protects the rights of anyone to marry.

Our previous election also demonstrated federal vs. state rights. Some states wished to make it harder for citizens to vote through stricter requirements (tripple match, picture IDs, etc). In some cases the federal government had to step in and rule that the states could not disenfranchise legetemate voters in an effort to eleminate voter fraud which rarely happens.

I agree that the federal government should not heavy handedly keep states from allowing medicinal marijuana or decriminalizing or legalizing it. We have our “war on drugs” to thank for these Draconian measures.

We live in an age when many state governments are very dependent on the federal government for at least part of their income. The federal government has basically become a cash pinata that the states, and even cities and counties, can whack open when they are on the verge of going broke. This complicates the issue of states rights, as the federal government can, and has, bullied the states when it comes to the issue of federal funding. With many states having money problems right now and seeking federal aid, I doubt states will have more rights under an Obama administration.

But, I agree with filletofspam that in practice, there are many issues the states should not have sovereignty over anyway. States can, and have, become rogue, passing unconstitutional laws. Also keep in mind that when the US first became independent, the preference for states rights reflected the society and culture at large. People did not identify with the United States so much as they did their particular state, on a level that many people today do not. Many people understood patriotism as a loyalty to one’s state, that being a person’s birthplace and culture. Today Americans are proud of their state, but typically identify themselves as citizens of the USA.