You are not logged in. Login Now register |  search
 0-5   6-30   31-55   56-59       
 
Grex > Agora35 > #210: United States or United State?
Author Message
drew
United States or United State? Mark Unseen   Dec 16 20:12 UTC 2000
The Electoral College system is reflective of the original makeup of this
country, as a collection of a bunch of mini-nations who had joined forces for
the purpose of dealing with the rest of the world. Each State would continue
to make its own rules, but turn over certain things to a Federal government.
A sort of United Federation of States.

After a while, however, this aspect of independent home rule started to erode.
Many people, not considering themselves citizens of any State but as
"Americans", now look to the Federal government and expect it to make all the
rules.

Should we continue to function as a coalition of indepentent states? Or is
it better now to become a megastate? What should each level of government be
doing? How big should the basic independent polity be, in population or
geographic area? Do you consider yourself an "American" or a "Michi-gander
(or Californian or whatever)"? What are your preferences?
59 responses total.
rcurl
response 1 of 59: Mark Unseen   Dec 16 21:36 UTC 2000
What about Ohio vs Michigan? Independence of states not only exists but
but involves a great deal of money and human emotion. We are *far* from
being a homogeneous "megastate".
tpryan
response 2 of 59: Mark Unseen   Dec 16 21:42 UTC 2000
        The Civil War is over, West Virginia and Virginia should get
over it, and merge back into one state!
gelinas
response 3 of 59: Mark Unseen   Dec 17 02:25 UTC 2000
I'd rather we remain more-or-less independent and sovereign states.
The recent unpleasantness settled the question of withdrawing from the
Union, and started us down a road that may eventually erase the internal
lines, but I don't think we are there yet.
gull
response 4 of 59: Mark Unseen   Dec 17 03:28 UTC 2000
I think *some* division of power between the national and state governments
is necessary.  It's a simple matter of delegation; state governments tend to
know better what's needed in their part of the country than the federal
government does.  I'm fairly comfortable with the present state of that
division of power.
richard
response 5 of 59: Mark Unseen   Dec 17 04:40 UTC 2000
actually the speaker of the Florida house of representatives, who led the
push to get the legislature to select a bush slate of electors,in case
the revotes favored Gore, came to prominence as a seccessionist.  He
supported Florida, at one time, seceding from the union if proper defecit
reduction bills were not passed.  Of course, as Lincoln proclaimed in
the civil war, secession is not legal.  If secession is not legal, then
the states don't own the union, and their participation in it is not
revocable.  This means that since the civil war, the union has been
greater that the parts that make it up.  Before the civil war, we were
referred to as These united states plural.  Ever since, we have been THE
United States...singular.  One nation.

The Consitution thus is outdated, at least in terms of states rights.  I
was a resident of the district of columbia for seven years, and had no
representation in congress.  I thought I was an american citizen, with
equal rights as anyone born in this country, but the states rights based
constitution told me I had *less* rights because I didnt live in a state.
Never mind that D.C. had and has a larger population than many states.

so I think the idea that the *union*, that is the nation as a whole, is
far greater than a group of states.  The Civil War established that this
was one country.  This is why the electoral college is outdated.
 0-5   6-30   31-55   56-59       
 Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss