Ice House wrote:[quote=blue_velvet] Suppose you want a state where drugs are legal and guns controlled, you could move there. State policies would gradually change as people left one state for another. Political competition to attract inhabitants is what you would find.
Quote:Suppose you are state that DOES NOT what drugs and you have a state bordering yours that is reponsible for a flood of drugs into your state?
Like Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California currently have to deal with? I was inconsistent* in presenting states that would or would not prohibit drugs. It was a hypothetical system that, by some stretch of imagination, could be perceived by me to be potentially ideal. Therefore, in an ideal society I believe the rights of drug users should be protected by the constitution. Nevertheless, in this situation the federal government would be drawn in via the commerce clause and I don't know what would happen. What do you think?
Quote:
Suppose you are a state where the people DO NOT want gay marriage and have voted so twice on a state wide ballot but the gay minority keeps overturning the vote of the majority in a court of law because of gay lawyers and pro gay judges?
I have never seen what involving the government has to do with pledging unfailing love and loyalty to another person. As for the legal facets, there should be equality under the law for all people. This, again, is a constitutional matter. So, the legal benefits of marriage should be available to all or to none. In my humble opinion the definition of marriage is insignificant in comparison to the emotional and spiritual bond. So, semantics aside marriage or civil union doesn't matter, it's the legal matters that are guaranteed. Besides, judges are elected. If the people can vote on a ballot measure, they can vote for an anti-gay judge.
Quote:
Suppose you are a state that DOES NOT want to be a safe haven for illegal immigants and their families?
This is another example of something the federal government actually should be involved in as it is an international matter.
Quote:
Suppose you are a state that DOES NOT want abortion and you want to get one?
There are so many differing opinions on this matter with excellent arguments on both sides that it should be left up to the states. The worst case scenario is that the individual in question would have to visit another state for the procedure.
Quote:Suppose you live in a state that DOES NOT want mosques and sharia law and you are a muslim?
Check the first amendment.
Quote:
Supose that people have jobs, family, friends, and history in their states and dont want to leave and go to another state?
That is a good question. It is tough, but people will relocate if the situation is drastic enough to warrant it. That is why the United States is populated by immigrants and the descendants of immigrants. They made a tough decision to leave their families, friends, livelihood, history, and culture, behind in search of freedom. No one is forcing them to leave their state. If they do leave, they won't face half of what their ancestors faced coming to a completely foreign country, learning a new language, and being spat on by nationalists.
I don't believe in eliminating the federal government. It is neccessary to hold the states together and decide on matters of exclusively national interest. The Bill of Rights is ingenious. In theory, it unfailingly hold the states to a bare minimum standard. No state can outlaw religion, freedom of speech, etc. Centralization makes the system unwieldy. Something that just does not work will affect all states. With more states' rights the policies in question will succeed or fail. It localizes the damage.
All that said, what do you suppose?
*I might add that my example of gun control was inconsistent as well as per the second amendment.