• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

State vs Nation

25,439
Posts
11
Years
So, a big difference (I think) that I have noticed between US politics and places like here in Australia, is that in the US the individual states seem to have a lot more power and political freedom than in other countries. Is this a good thing? Is this even true?
 

string555

Banned
1,373
Posts
6
Years
The only example I can think of off the top of my head right now is the whole marijuana legalization thing. It's kind of a crappy situation, because it's like "Oh weed is legal in some states now. Oh, but btw, the Feds can come in any time they want and raid a shop and completely screw over anyone involved. kthxbai".

So, in that case, it may seem like the states have enough power to flip off the Feds and go through with it if they choose to. At the same time, as mentioned above, it seems kind of imaginary in a way, since they could shut it all down any time they want.

I'll try to think of some better examples, but that's all I got for now. :X
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
It's actually very true. The Tenth Amendment establishes that "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 means that the federal government here only has the power to do things our Constitution says it has the right to do. Everything else is managed by the states. This is why when you become a lawyer, you pass the state bar (unless you're specifically becoming a federal lawyer); almost all cases are tried at the state level, not the federal level, and each state has its own set of laws (though many of them end up being similar).

There is the concept of incorporation, though, where certain federal-level laws are applied to the states, specifically those in the Bill of Rights. What this means in effect is that the states can't infringe on rights guaranteed by the Constitution; Wisconsin, for example, can't make a law that restricts free speech even though the right to free speech is only guaranteed at the federal level.

Is this a good thing?
I think the idea of local control over governance is a good idea that has in some ways been executed poorly. I think giving people more of a say over their own affairs at a local level and only delegating certain powers to the federal government (such as the power to guarantee certain basic, universal human rights) is the right way to set up a democratic government.

A real life example that comes to mind is the gas-powered car industry versus the electric car industry. In a situation with strong federal power, the entrenched traditional cars industry could make laws that affect the entire country that prevent the sales of electric cars at car dealerships, whereas in our system, they can only pass such laws in individual states. This has actually happened and in certain auto industry-friendly states, companies like Tesla can't sell their cars at dealerships because the auto industry was able to get laws passed that blocked it. However, in states like California, where Tesla is bringing in a lot of money and has a lot of popular support, they can't pass these kinds of laws. Our system enables companies like Telsa to get off the ground even if a powerful industry has an undue amount of influence in most other places.
 

Star-Lord

withdrawl .
715
Posts
15
Years
I think states / provinces have to be able to have their own specific legislative powers as a form of protection should the federal branch of government become entirely unreasonable.

I have nothing else to really add.
 

ImLethe

Lethe
28
Posts
6
Years
  • Age 22
  • OHIO
  • Seen Mar 19, 2020
This is a really tricky topic to understand, mainly because of the Constitution.

Like it was mentioned above, the tenth amendment says the federal government can only do what's stated in the Constitution, the states get control over everything else. However, there's also the elastic clause in the Constitution which grants the federal government the ability to pass all laws that are "necessary and proper" carry out the powers that have been stated. Over time, this has lead to the federal government having more and more power.

The history of this is really interesting as well for anybody wanting to research it. The founding of the country and transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution makes it a bit easier to understand.
 
25,439
Posts
11
Years
Personally, I think that the individual states in the US (and other places) have far too much power in some respects which often leads to huge discrepancies in laws and policies that can cause problems for people travelling or moving interstate among other things. It probably makes it harder for states to collaborate with each other and the federal government also. More uniformity would probably be a good thing.
 

ImLethe

Lethe
28
Posts
6
Years
  • Age 22
  • OHIO
  • Seen Mar 19, 2020
Personally, I think that the individual states in the US (and other places) have far too much power in some respects which often leads to huge discrepancies in laws and policies that can cause problems for people travelling or moving interstate among other things. It probably makes it harder for states to collaborate with each other and the federal government also. More uniformity would probably be a good thing.

It's funny that you say that, because the lack of uniformity is kind of the idea behind the system. The point is to not allow the federal government to have too much power, which is what the founders were extremely afraid of. Giving the states more power decentralizes the government.

As far as knowing the laws and policies of different places, it's up to the citizens to be aware. For the MOST part, it's not really an issue too often. I understand what you're saying though.

Edit: I forgot the most important part. The real main point of keeping state and nation separate, is to leave the power in the hands of the people.
 
Last edited:
25,439
Posts
11
Years
It's funny that you say that, because the lack of uniformity is kind of the idea behind the system. The point is to not allow the federal government to have too much power, which is what the founders were extremely afraid of. Giving the states more power decentralizes the government.

As far as knowing the laws and policies of different places, it's up to the citizens to be aware. For the MOST part, it's not really an issue too often. I understand what you're saying though.

Edit: I forgot the most important part. The real main point of keeping state and nation separate, is to leave the power in the hands of the people.

You can still put the power in the hands of the people with a more centralised government. Democracy doesn't die just because the government at the state level has less autonomy.

Meanwhile, there's a negative impact on important things like education with such a decentralised government. We used to have a problem here in Australia, where all the states were following different curriculum. This meant that when a family moved inter-state, their children were moving into an entirely different framework for their schooling and would often have massive gaps in their education. These gaps aren't always immediately evident and it can be a year or two before they start becoming problematic, but it's never a good thing. It's not impossible to close them sure, but this can put a lot of strain on educators and also parents who might need to pay for extra tuition.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US is still operating under a similar system to our old one where each state controls its own educational policies right? If that's the case, then you face the same problem whether you are aware of it or not.
 

Nah

15,926
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • Online now
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US is still operating under a similar system to our old one where each state controls its own educational policies right? If that's the case, then you face the same problem whether you are aware of it or not.
Education is still primarily handled (and funded) by state and local government yeah. Around 2010 there was this federal (or actually it might not technically be an initiative by the federal government now that I'm reading a bit more about it) thing developed called "Common Core" that is an attempt to have, as the name implies, a common base curriculum or whatever for all schools in the U.S. Though not every single state (formally) follows it, and has had very mixed criticism over the years.

Though I'd say that the U.S.'s education issues do not solely stem from a state vs federal problem, but getting into that is not for this thread.
 
Last edited:
25,439
Posts
11
Years
Education is still primarily handled (and funded) by state and local government yeah. Around 2010 there was this federal (or actually it might not technically be an initiative by the federal government now that I'm reading a bit more about it) thing developed called "Common Core" that is an attempt to have, as the name implies, a common base curriculum or whatever for all schools in the U.S. Though not every single state (formally) follows it, and has had very mixed criticism over the years.

Though I'd say that the U.S.'s education issues do not solely stem from a state vs federal problem, but getting into that is not for this thread.

From my understanding, the problem with common core is content rather than uniformity.
Obviously the differences between states wouldn't be the only reason your system has problems, I can think of a few others off the top of my head even. I'm sure it doesn't help though.
 
Back
Top