Support NeoGAF

[massoluk]

The irony is that, aside from Texas (and even that is suspected), just about every state that makes a big deal about State right are heavily dependent on Federal Government for funding.

 

[TacticalFox88]

the federal government is raiding weed dispensaries in states that have voted to make it legal. the federal government isn't always right.

are you in favor of a one world government?? would you be comfortable with representatives in China playing a large role in legislation here?

your thread title is lame. just because someone supports something doesn't mean they are 'obessed' with it.

Jesus christ, what the fuck?

One world government? Where the hell did I mention ANYTHING alluding to that?

And obviously my title was directed at a specific niche of people.

 

[jtb]

I don't even see the connection between Ayn Rand and Tocqueville, at least not in Rand's philosophies. Does it stem from the "tyranny of the majority" stuff? Poor rich landowners

 

[WanderingWind]

No I do not agree with every law at a state or federal level, but you are completely confounding what I am saying. You are adding absolutely nothing to this discussion other than obtuse devil's advocate crap.

What a strange little outburst. Calm down.

 

[Gotchaye]

What gives?

Legacy of racism.

The major concern of states rights' proponents from around the time the Constitution was ratified up through the Civil War was the preservation of slavery. After the Civil War their major concern was preventing the federal government from forcing them to afford black people their full rights. This has only arguably stopped being a major motivation for states' rights proponents since maybe around 1990; I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't a huge motivation before that.

And since then it's been running on leftover racism and inertia. Plenty of arguments for it have been developed in the 200 or so years in which the doctrine has been useful in defending the right of white people to be horrible to black people, and people are inundated growing up with the notion that it's a respectable idea. So some people latch on to it when it's politically convenient to do so.

 

[Chichikov]

States were implementing Medicare and SS policies in the 20s; in fact, we would be less likely to have them had not states rights allowed John Commons-- the father of SS-- and the rest of the Wisconsin Progressive school (strongly committed to the Tenth Amendment, as per the idol Louis Brandeis) to build it in the states first.

Segregation/race is a harder case; it's also why we specifically amended the Constitution after the Civil War to nationalize that policy, precisely because race was such a unique faultline in American history. (None of us who argue even passionately for rigid Tenth Amendment politics want no federal government, or totally unfettered states; the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment give us a strong floor to make sure basic rights are protected, as progressive legal scholar Heather Gerken- a progressive fan of states' rights--suggests.) Nonetheless, even with segregation it's arguable that market forces were breaking it down and the fascist southern south would have collapsed soon after anyway. As I've noted elsewhere, citing the work of historian Bruce Schulman, southern politics was realigning on economic interest and away from segregation in the 50s and 60s, and George Wallace and friends were a dying breed who knew it.





I can and will. As noted above, autonomous states began the effort to destroy slavery in America and put increasing pressure on the South to do the same. (Again, see Tocqueville's analysis of the difference on either side of the Ohio River and the effects slavery had on economies.) As to the Civil War-- it was absolutely not fought about "states' rights" but about slavery. Most Northerners-- Charles Sumner excepted, more or less--were just as committed to states rights and state sovereignty as southerners were. Read the secession documents (at least of the first batch to secede- Virginia and Texas are more complicated.) These documents, as well as Alexander Stephens iconic Cornerstone Speech [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76], are very heavy on the slavery, light on the states rights stuff.

Let's look to the other side, though. Illinois's civil war era Governor Richard Yates, said "Our people will wade through seas of blood before they will see a single star or a solitary stripe erased from the glorious flag of our union.” He also said that he "would be the first to resist" federal expansion that violated states rights and would chip into an insurrection on its behalf.

Many in the North contended- I think rightly- that if anything the Southern "Slave Power" was actually the more aggressive in violating states' rights by mandating federal policies that dispatched federal officials to do slave holders' aims, by insisting that southern laws applied to the joint territories, by gagging northerners from debating policies in Congress, and by insisting on the power to censor mail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Power See also the 1859 Supreme Court case of Ableman v. Booth.

Nearly all constitutional histories on the post-Civil War era will explain how committed the North was to states' rights. Ever wonder why Reconstruction failed? Because the North refused to continue to intervene in the South once it ceased to be war measures? Michael Les Benedict and Eric Foner are particularly good on this. I can also bury you in documents from northern progressives demanding 10th Amendment powers.

Southerners really only turned to states' rights as a way to rehabilitate themselves after the War, and Progressive historians in the 1910s and 1920s seeking to unify America in building up the administrative state decided to play along in the "Lost Cause." They both decided to blame it on states' rights, instead of race, when whites in both north and south decided to throw blacks under the bus in the name of reconciliation and building the modern American state.

On nearly any measure EXCEPT race, the north was far, far more zealous of trying to preserve decentralized government between the Civil War and the New Deal. Devotees of states rights and decentralization ought rightly curse the South whenever southerners proclaim a heritage of states rights; instead, they ruined it by cynically treating it as the last remaining justification for racism.

No, just no, and it's much much simpler than you're making it.
The Civil War was the strongest federal action against state rights in the history of this country, in The Civil War there was one side that was for slavery and one side that was for state rights, it was the same side.

And come on, you read Alexander Stephens and Tocqueville but didn't bother to look at the first fucking line in the South Carolina Declaration of Secession?
Let me help you here -

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States

Now again, I'm not saying that because in this particular case the state rights argument was used to promote something monstrous that it's always used to push bad things, in fact, I said the exact opposite of that in this very thread, but if you want to make the case the state rights is always a good thing, the best that you can do is to not mention slavery and hope no one notice.

 

[Particle Physicist]

What a strange little outburst. Calm down.

That is an outburst? Just pointing out your non-arguments and straw man. If you want to discuss the nature of humans and their inconsistent views and beliefs, be my guest, but I am not attempting to have a philosophical discussion here.

 

[WanderingWind]

That is an outburst? Just pointing out your non-arguments and straw man. If you want to discuss the nature of humans and their inconsistent views and beliefs, be my guest, but that is not what I was attempting to discuss.

I don't particularly care what lead to your hurt feelings. It doesn't change the actual topic at hand. Get your feelings under control and respond to what is being talked about.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I don't particularly care what lead to your hurt feelings. It doesn't change the actual topic at hand. Get your feelings under control and respond to what is being talked about.

... I see you are trolling. Well. Ok. Whatever makes you feel superior I guess.

 

[WanderingWind]

... I see you are trolling. Well. Ok.

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. In reality, however, I pointed out the inherient flaw in believing that it's always somebody else that wants to apply the law inconsistently. I even backed it up with a modern example. And then you ranted about "obtuse devil's advocacy crap." You need to learn how to have a discussion.

 

[bro1]

Personally, I detest states rights as it makes moving difficult. We moved from Philly to Charleston for my wife's work. In Charleston there are very low taxes. Because there are no taxes collected at a sufficient rate, the schools and roads are complete shit. We have to spend $10k a year in private school that is not as good as the suburban public schools in Philly.

 

[numble]

They either agree with state's rights or not. It's an inconsistent view to only agree with it for certain things (banning gay marriage at the state level), but disagree with it for other crap (banning gay marriage at the federal level).

No, any reading of the Constitution delineates between federal and states' rights. Only extreme libertarians would see no federal rights at all. It's not inconsistent to believe that some rights are reserved for the states and some are reserved for the federal government.

 

[Particle Physicist]

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. In reality, however, I pointed out the inherient flaw in believing that it's always somebody else that wants to apply the law inconsistently. I even backed it up with a modern example. And then you ranted about "obtuse devil's advocacy crap." You need to learn how to have a discussion.

You didn't point out any specific examples. At all. And your argument is a complete straw man. It does not address anything I actually said.

 

[ZaCH3000]

Having a federal government and state government is a more effective approach for a number of reasons.

Federal government has its purpose to be the umbrella entity with issues that make sense on the federal level such as individual rights and the universal philosophy that every citizen is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course it serves other purposes, but for simplicity sake let me leave it at that.

State government is more effective for dealing with micro-economies such as farming as a regional economic driver in the mid-west compared to fishing and timber in the mid-atlantic and northeast regions of the US. Therefore, the idea is that state governments can more effectively and efficiently deal with regional economic issues in comparison to a federal entity reigning control over such focused issues from a tiny district next to Maryland.

Obviously other issues are involved but I believe micro-economies are the primary reason why state governments exist in this diverse and expansive nation of ours and that federal government supersedes micro-economic conditions when an individual citizens god given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is compromised.

This is what I believe to be the most fundamentally basic philosophy of the United States government.

Feel free to agree, disagree, expand, add, subtract, etc.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

No, any reading of the Constitution delineates between federal and states' rights. Only extreme libertarians would see no federal rights at all. It's not inconsistent to believe that some rights are reserved for the states and some are reserved for the federal government.

Exactly. And if there is doubt, you have the court system to clarify it.

 

[Gotchaye]

Southerners really only turned to states' rights as a way to rehabilitate themselves after the War, and Progressive historians in the 1910s and 1920s seeking to unify America in building up the administrative state decided to play along in the "Lost Cause." They both decided to blame it on states' rights, instead of race, when whites in both north and south decided to throw blacks under the bus in the name of reconciliation and building the modern American state.

On nearly any measure EXCEPT race, the north was far, far more zealous of trying to preserve decentralized government between the Civil War and the New Deal. Devotees of states rights and decentralization ought rightly curse the South whenever southerners proclaim a heritage of states rights; instead, they ruined it by cynically treating it as the last remaining justification for racism.

I don't think this is accurate. Yes, the Civil War was about slavery. But the intellectual justification for secession was not "slavery good!" The legal arguments rested on the idea that if a state wanted slavery, it had a right to it.

Very few people have ever been passionate about a legal principle. The invention and support of the doctrine of states' rights served purposes that people did care about. States' rights was a useful doctrine whenever a group controlled a state's politics but lacked a majority nationally. The major divide in US politics pre- Civil War was between slaveholding and free states. Slavery was the primary driver of geographically-distributed political interests in the US. Slavery is what made states' rights a doctrine that many people had a reason to embrace. Certainly northerners had some reason to use the doctrine whenever national politics was going against them - because slaveholding states were ascendant - but this is still all rooted in slavery.

Also, "EXCEPT race" is a pretty big carve-out. It is absolutely bizarre to exclude racist southerners from the group of "devotees of states' rights".

 

[WanderingWind]

You didn't point out any specific examples. At all. And your argument is a complete straw man. It does not address anything I actually said.

...yeah, see, if you weren't so upset and actually read what was happening, you probably would've seen this.

Sometimes states move faster than federal on social issues. Gay marriage should be constitutionally protected by amendment, but until that happens, at least some states allow it.

And my first post. And any other of my posts. Seriously. Calm down. Or don't. In any event, you're clearly not keeping up.

 

[Bovadose]

I mean this obsession is baffling to me.

Any time any type of argument comes up political wise, there's always that ONE guy who says "it should be left up to the states!"

Um....why?

What's so different about states than the Federal Government other than the obvious? I mean they have the power to fuck you over just as much as the Fed if not more so due to you being in close proximity. I'd argue that state governments have been a hinderance than a help, the only saving grace being that if they didn't exist then the federal bureaucracy would be ridiculously larger than it already its.

If we had left everything to the states we'd still have:

Slavery

Segregation

No Medicare

No SS Act

A useless Federal Government in general.

What gives?

Your argument can go both ways though. Without states rights, then some legislation that you want passed may never be passed. I don't know your beliefs, but legislation like gay marriage or the legalization of marijuana are things that wouldn't make it on a federal level. Eventually they might I suppose.

There is also the issue that working everything on the federal level means that you have a smaller voice, but working on a state or city level, then you have an easier time being heard... because there are fewer people to drown you out.

It also sounds like you are saying that states rights people don't want a federal government at all.. if that's the type of person that you are talking about, then I would agree with you. The way we have things now if the bulk of the country agrees on something, then it can be passed on a federal level. But if some legislation is controversial, then we can pass it on a state or even city level. So, there are advantages to a federal and state setup. Remember that on a federal only level legislation couldn't be controversial, because it wouldn't pass if it is... so things like abortion would remain legal, but gay marriage would be illegal, and so would marijuana.. and so on.

I don't think going all federal or all state is the right answer.. others have also pointed out that some issues will exist in only some places in the country. Dealing with those tiny issues on a federal level would probably be less efficient. Especially if you have people from one area of the country helping choose some legislation for another location... when they are far removed from that place they may not understand the issue fully or simply not care.

Hopefully my post is uhh understandable.

 

[Particle Physicist]

No, any reading of the Constitution delineates between federal and states' rights. Only extreme libertarians would see no federal rights at all. It's not inconsistent to believe that some rights are reserved for the states and some are reserved for the federal government.

I agree with you here. I guess how I should have worded it is that they are inconsistent when talking about the same exact issues. For instance, they cite state rights when banning same sex marriage at the state level, but also get behind the defense of marriage act, or even a federal ban on gay marriage which essentially nullifies the right's of states that passed marriage equality. That view is inconsistent in my opinion. When I say they, in this instance, I mean republican officials. Obviously, not everyone who is for state rights acts this way.

 

[Particle Physicist]

...yeah, see, if you weren't so upset and actually read what was happening, you probably would've seen this.

Last edited by WanderingWind; Today at 12:57 PM

I posted before your edit. lol

And that example does not even refer to this:

"In reality, however, I pointed out the inherient flaw in believing that it's always somebody else that wants to apply the law inconsistently. I even backed it up with a modern example. "

So I am not sure what you are even arguing right now.

And my first post. And any other of my posts. Seriously. Calm down. Or don't. In any event, you're clearly not keeping up.

Why are you trying to pick a fight? It's very strange.

 

[Guevara]

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."​

Lee Atwater, advisor to Reagan and Bush (I)

 

[akira28]

^^wut.

mind blown.

 

[WanderingWind]

Last edited by WanderingWind; Today at 12:57 PM

I posted before your edit. lol

And that example does not even refer to this:

"In reality, however, I pointed out the inherient flaw in believing that it's always somebody else that wants to apply the law inconsistently. I even backed it up with a modern example. "

So I am not sure what you are even arguing right now.





Why are you trying to pick a fight? It's very strange.

Like I said. Read the actual thread and respond to what is said, not what you think is being said. YOU started in with

You are adding absolutely nothing to this discussion other than obtuse devil's advocate crap.

You don't get to now twist this like it was something I started to "pick a fight." I said absolutely nothing about you at this point. If you decide you don't agree with something I said, say that, instead of dismissing everything I said with some pithy, false little personal dig. You can't do that and then wonder where the discussion went.

 

[Chichikov]

^^wut.

mind blown.

His mind was blown as well, from the inside, probably by God.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Like I said. Read the actual thread and respond to what is said, not what you think is being said. YOU started in with


You don't get to now twist this like it was something I started to "pick a fight." I said absolutely nothing about you. If you decide you don't agree with something I said, say that, instead of dismissing everything I said with some pithy, false little personal dig. You can't do that and then wonder where the discussion went.

You forgot the first sentence in that quote:

"No I do not agree with every law at a state or federal level, but you are completely confounding what I am saying."

"this discussion" = the discussion between you and I.

"obtuse devil's advocate crap" = playing devil's advocate for the sake of it. Which is what I assumed you were doing, but I am not so sure anymore.

I guess it was strongly worded, but asking you not to pull a straw man argument and instead discuss what I was actually saying... like numble did, is a far leap from insulting my intelligence and trying to goad me like you have been doing.

Really now, this is so far off topic, if you want to continue insulting me, please do so through PMs.

 

[WanderingWind]

You forgot the first sentence in that quote:

"No I do not agree with every law at a state or federal level, but you are completely confounding what I am saying."

"this discussion" = the discussion between you and I.

"obtuse devil's advocate crap" = playing devil's advocate for the sake of it. Which is what I assumed you were doing, but I am not so sure anymore.

I guess it was strongly worded, but asking you not to pull a straw man argument and instead discuss what I was actually saying... like numble did, is a far leap from insulting my intelligence and trying to goad me like you have been doing.

Really now, this is so far off topic, if you want to continue insulting me, please do so through PMs.

No. You were clearly wrong and you seem to realize it with the backpedaling, but you're still not going to get to pretend that you were just some innocent little lamb I set upon out of nowhere. Own your actions. It wasn't strongly worded, it was a personal attack born out of your misunderstanding of what was going on. Your ego notwithstanding, the issue I addressed was exactly the same as numbles, if you hadn't - by your own admission - missed what was said.

Like I said, in future, respond to what's being said directly instead of getting angry and lashing out at the people you disagree with personally and you may be able to avoid these little embarrassments in the future.

 

[Partial Gamification]

His mind was blown as well, from the inside, probably by God.

Someone should hire you to browse politicans' bookshelves for analysis.

 

[ComputerMKII]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

 

[Thug Waffle]

Because America is large and what may be effective legislation in Idaho may not be in Florida.

Simple and true. A devastating first post. I'm surprised there are so many people arguing against this.

Federal Law trumps State Law, anyway. There's a hierarchy in place so the careless states can't get away with stupid shit. If Idaho wants to have different zoning laws and soil standards than New York to accommodate agriculture specific to the region, why shouldn't they be allowed to? The Federal Government would leave that up to them. If Idaho decided they wanted to re-enact slavery, the Federal Government would probably step in. That's fair and it makes sense to me. Checks and balances, ya'll. Checks and balances.

 

[Wazzim]

The states are closer to the execution of policies and may have better insight in the regional situation.

Don't really see a benefit in some of the state rights but I can understand the idea behind them.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The states are closer to the execution of policies and may have better insight in the regional situation.

Don't really see a benefit in some of the state rights but I can understand the idea behind them.

Yeah, I think things like civil issues(discrimination, voting rights, marriage, etc) should not be left up to the states.

But then again, you have some states that are absolutely shaming the federal government on the marriage front along with drug reform. So, yeah...

 

[Aaron Strife]

"States should have the right to ban gay marriage! Unless they want to legalize it, in which case they can go fuck off."

-- John McCain probably

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

 

[Particle Physicist]

No. You were clearly wrong and you seem to realize it with the backpedaling, but you're still not going to get to pretend that you were just some innocent little lamb I set upon out of nowhere. Own your actions. It wasn't strongly worded, it was a personal attack born out of your misunderstanding of what was going on. Your ego notwithstanding, the issue I addressed was exactly the same as numbles, if you hadn't - by your own admission - missed what was said.

Like I said, in future, respond to what's being said directly instead of getting angry and lashing out at the people you disagree with personally and you may be able to avoid these little embarrassments in the future.

What are you talking about? It's like you are arguing against a phantom me. And you said nothing even remotely similar to what numbles said.

 

[Tristam]

Came for the Lee Atwater quotation, stayed for nothing else.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Yeah, I think things like civil issues(discrimination, voting rights, marriage, etc) should not be left up to the states.

But then again, you have some states that are absolutely shaming the federal government on the marriage front along with drug reform. So, yeah...

This is basically my thoughts. But I would also add that states should not be able to block federal social programs, and there should be some regulatory oversight committee on gerrymandering, but I guess both of those things can be argued as covered under civil issues.

 

[Kad5]

How about we unify every country into a world government? Why are some people obsessed with the rights of their individual country? We should make a world government and create legislation that can help the world. Why do we need our individual countries to make laws for us?

Spoiler

: See the 10th amendment

 

[Chichikov]

Came for the Lee Atwater quotation, stayed for nothing else.

 

[jtb]

How about we unify every country into a world government? Why are some people obsessed with the rights of their individual country? We should make a world government and create legislation that can help the world. Why do we need our individual countries to make laws for us?

Spoiler

: See the 10th amendment

better yet, let's just go back to the articles of confederation!

 

[MattKeil]

No, just no, and it's much much simpler than you're making it.
The Civil War was the strongest federal action against state rights in the history of this country, in The Civil War there was one side that was for slavery and one side that was for state rights, it was the same side.

Please provide evidence that the Northern states were opposed to states' rights, rather than simply opposed to states' rights to declare it legal to own human beings.

 

[Kad5]

better yet, let's just go back to the articles of confederation!

A Free Trade Agreement would have been better than a flawed document like that.

 

[sans_pants]

my best argument against states rights always come down to "the south"


i do believe things can be left to the states, but things that are important to society as a whole, like education and healthcare and freedoms, should be federal

 

[WanderingWind]

my best argument against states rights always come down to "the south"


i do believe things can be left to the states, but things that are important to society as a whole, like education and healthcare and freedoms, should be federal

I agree on all of those. The issue is that there never seems to be any clear line to draw between what affects us all and what should be the responsibility of the state. What constitutes "freedoms?" Is is gay marriage or gun rights? Both? Neither? I think that's what really answers the OP. Why are some people concerned about states rights? Because they don't have faith in the federal government to legislate to protect what they view to be essential freedoms or rights.

 

[Chichikov]

Please provide evidence that the Northern states were opposed to states' rights, rather than simply opposed to states' rights to declare it legal to own human beings.

Why would I provide evidence to a claim I didn't make?
Do you not understand my post?
I can try explaining myself again.

p.s.
If you're curious about what Lincoln thought of the issue (which seem to be much more relevant than trying to ascertain the opinion of a state, whatever that even mean), his message to congress in special session in 1861 is a great place to start -

This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining to a State—to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution—no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union.
[...]
Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights,’’ asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself?

 

[Htown]

So there are things that are better left up to the states than the federal government. This is fact.

It is also a fact, however, that people who actually use "state's rights" in their rhetoric are usually up to no good.

 

[ZaCH3000]

my best argument against states rights always come down to "the south"


i do believe things can be left to the states, but things that are important to society as a whole, like education and healthcare and freedoms, should be federal

I disagree. My view point is hard to explain so I will try encapsulate my stance with this example. So for example, the mid-west economy is primarily based on agriculture. Therefore, in school students should be taught about agricultural science.

In the mid-atlantic where I'm from, a large part of our economy is based off the ocean, and thus we learned a lot about bodies of water and how meteorology and astrological forces affect tides and the ocean's energy.

Obviously it shouldn't be centered around the propellers of a regions primary economy, but the states should have the right to design programs to teach kids about the sciences that are vital for understanding and improving those economies.

I'm not even suggesting that physics and chemistry shouldn't be taught at a fundamental level either. Obviously the federal government can standardize some of the things educators have to teach. However, they educators from specific regions should be able to tailor lessons around the local economy.

In other words, they should have the freedom to weave agriculture using real world examples to reinforce the fundamental principles of chemistry. Hopefully I'm conveying my stance in a way that doesn't make me sound extremist (here's a hint I'm not) but what I'm proposing is difficult to abstract from a single post on a forum.

 

[davepoobond]

States rights are important and are used as a counterbalance against federal power.

having a strong federal government is important, but letting States have "all other rights" that the Feds don't have any power over is sooo important.

Basically, the Federal government needs to step it up on a couple of issues like marriage, etc, but those take time and mostly go through the court system to enact any permanent change.

Legislators don't want to piss of their constituency by passing a gay marriage act, so they'll let the court system do it -- it may take a long time but they don't have to risk their jobs and the people in the Supreme Court have lifelong tenancy so they can't be ousted by whatever "sane" decisions they may make.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

It's a system that had worked well longer than any other system. If a matter is important enough, the federal government can make it happen with the supremacy clause.

 

[WanderingWind]

I disagree. My view point is hard to explain so I will try encapsulate my stance with this example. So for example, the mid-west economy is primarily based on agriculture. Therefore, in school students should be taught about agricultural science.

In the mid-atlantic where I'm from, a large part of our economy is based off the ocean, and thus we learned a lot about bodies of water and how meteorology and astrological forces affect tides and the ocean's energy.

Obviously it shouldn't be centered around the propellers of a regions primary economy, but the states should have the right to design programs to teach kids about the sciences that are vital for understanding and improving those economies.

I'm not even suggesting that physics and chemistry shouldn't be taught at a fundamental level either. Obviously the federal government can standardize some of the things educators have to teach. However, they educators from specific regions should be able to tailor lessons around the local economy.

In other words, they should have the freedom to weave agriculture using real world examples to reinforce the fundamental principles of chemistry. Hopefully I'm conveying my stance in a way that doesn't make me sound extremist (here's a hint I'm not) but what I'm proposing is difficult to abstract from a single post on a forum.

Not that I disagree, but the human element comes in to play. Those bible belt states may weave creationist studies into their course because the local public demands it and the legislators want to protect/advance their own careers. If there would some way to protect schools from that type of behavior, while still pushing localized education studies, absolutely. I just don't see how that would be possible though, without federal standards being set. Maybe a review board of some type?

 

[Dude Abides]

This is the actual political theory supporting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

Most states rightsers are fair-weather federalists though.