Is It OK To Have Parts Of The Country Different Than Other Parts?

gmart74 · November 3rd, 2009, 08:16 PM

The Louisiana mixed race marriage issue and abortion etc discussions have made me wonder if a nation of 300+ million people can function under one umbrella set of laws. I understand that our founding fathers thought states should be able to wield considerable power in their own territories, but it seems lately that federal law has pretty much usurped most power from states in regards to law.

Is it ok for some states to have an outright ban on firearms and other states to have open carry, shall issue for all citizens? Is it ok for some parts of the country to engage in separation of races while others embrace it? Abortion? Healthcare? etc etc. How effectively can a federal government legislate what is right and what is wrong to such a diverse country of people with such differing views? Should they even try? Their duty is to encourage interstate commerce and resolve arguments among the states. Can this country ever be truly homogenous wrt laws governing behavior and attitudes?

Tide1986 · November 3rd, 2009, 08:42 PM

The country should not be homogenous. However, the one area of commonality across the country should be the rights and protections of the People outlined in the Constitution.
Posted via Mobile Device

buzzincuzzin · November 3rd, 2009, 08:58 PM

"How effictly can the federal government legislate"? Delete the rest of your concerns and worry about this phrase. Read the Constitution. Great writing. Rates right up there with Moses's rocks.

NYBamaFan · November 3rd, 2009, 09:28 PM

If state's rights weren't disolved in the civil war, you wouldn't be asking. Our country was far stronger when we were a single nation of people working together, but respecting our various differences (in law, if not otherwise).

The civil war might have preserved the union, but it destroyed the republic...

Tide1986 · November 3rd, 2009, 10:36 PM

	Quote:	NYBamaFan
	If state's rights weren't disolved in the civil war, you wouldn't be asking. Our country was far stronger when we were a single nation of people working together, but respecting our various differences (in law, if not otherwise). The civil war might have preserved the union, but it destroyed the republic...

Agreed...100%.
Posted via Mobile Device

TRUTIDE · November 4th, 2009, 02:04 AM

Personally I think the founders had it right and I agree that we have steadily moved away from their original intentions.

I think the Feds should have an overall authority on protecting our most basic freedoms as outlined by the Constitution but the states should be the controling body for each individual state. The Feds can implement policy and laws to protect the right for all citizens to own guns but it should be up to the states (the people of each state) to determine how to maintain such laws and policy. The idea of judges making laws that affect every state in the union is ridiculous and goes in the face on everything this country was founded on. Judges are not legislators. This country is regional. The people in Alabama certainly do not have the same needs and concerns as the people of NY and the people in South Carolina are different from the people in California. This is why represented legislation is so important. Allowing judges to make law and legislate is where I think this country has gotten off track.

bamafan99905 · November 4th, 2009, 03:09 PM

	Quote:	NYBamaFan
	If state's rights weren't disolved in the civil war, you wouldn't be asking. Our country was far stronger when we were a single nation of people working together, but respecting our various differences (in law, if not otherwise). The civil war might have preserved the union, but it destroyed the republic...

I wish the South would have won. Rather our capital be in the south than in DC pandering to the Californias and New England states.