Saturday, September 18, 2010

Who needs states anyway?

I recently started reading a book I picked up from the bargain bin while on vacation. It's called "Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention" and it's pretty good. It's not what I would call a must-read or a spell binding book, but it helps fill some gaps in my understanding of the Constitution and helps you get inside the minds of the people who drafted it.

Part of what I was reading talked about the need for a strong central government and then I heard something on the radio that basically said - "who needs states anyway?" With the push towards national control of education, national control of health care, national control of banking and finance laws, etc, etc. Why have individual states?

Of course my friends and family who cheer for University of South Carolina who have to adjust to a new name if the states went away and Columbia College is already taken. But they could keep their beloved mascot and change the name to something like Gamecock U.

In all seriousness, I'd like your opinion. Who needs states? Why not let the federal government dictate everything. Why should my state laws be different than yours?


David said...

I think we've got a pretty good system right now. I think we do need a strong national government to keep us from each others throats.

But at the same time, different regions have different needs. To put one entity in complete control of both Appalachia and the South West for example, would probably result in complete chaos. There's a world of differences between the two regions, and one complete package of government is not going to work well for both of them.

Randy said...

David, the strong national government is doing so much more than keeping us at each others' throats these days, it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch..

"The Edge" said...

I strongly disagree!!!!! I don't want the yahoos running California into the biggest debt-monger running my state which nearly has a balanced budget! They alone are proof that separate states are good for competition.

But, the 2nd, and more compelling reason is the voice of the common man. If you reduce EVERY election to a popular vote, then the biggest cities control EVERY election, which is NOT good for the country. We need the electoral college to work exactly the way it has. Some may argue against me here, but the lawyers did NOT elect George Bush 43 - the PEOPLE of the United States did via the electoral college. If everything was a popular vote, we know Al Gore would have been in the White House. And whether you want to face facts or not, Al Gore is not exactly a truth-teller. His own statements are proof of that! I don't want a habitual liar in the White House at any time - no matter what party they claim to be running for. Just saying.....