~46~ Lame Duck Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~

[njbill]

Thanks, gents.

[HooDat]

Nope, they aren't. My father was head of a big insurance co. in the 60s and 70s. He adamantly wanted federal legislation and, in fact, testified in support thereof before Congress in the 70s. He said to me more than once that he would much rather have one set of rules than 50. He despised state insurance commissioners because, he thought, they were petty and parochial.

NJBill.....what this tells me is that your father was a good man, and thought big picture.

And was from a now lost era, unfortunately.

The few good guys are fighting the good fight like your dad.

agreed

[MDlaxfan76]

re insurance, the rationale you suggest (reduces competition) is anything but a great argument for federal rules, interstate commerce.

I didn't say it was a great argument - I was pointing out the relevant circumstances surrounding the issue. Pointing out that national decision making does not equal better. May or may not equal worse too. But ultimately too many people think it depends on whether you get to THEIR answer rather than a "right" answer....

Settle it nationally is just fine. Don't like the answer? Win elections.

this sounds like a guy who has a preference for how the national votes fall-out more than the way state level voting would play out - which implies a serious urban bias and a whole lot of confidence that the national lobbyists' interests line up well with your own.

mmm, more like a majoritarian bias, not urban versus rural. But that's not my rationale either.

My rationale is that when there's a really good argument for national rules, do it federally. Else do it at the state level. I see the interstate uniformity and efficiency as darn good reason to do at the federal level. Same for externalities that don't know borders, ie water and air pollution.

Same argument at the state vs local, if it makes considerably more sense to do state-wide, do it that way, else push down to local jurisdictions. You gonna let every town decide whether it's ok for their chemical plant to dump waste in the river? I'm guessing no.

I quite agree that lobbyist $ convolute decision-making.
If I had a magic wand, I'd change campaign financing and lobbyist rules dramatically.

But I think you may forget that lobbyists have even more direct sway at the state legislature level, and corruption at that level is even easier to get away with. All bad, but state level decisions aren't a protection from lobbyists.

HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.

You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.

HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.

You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.

[HooDat]

re insurance, the rationale you suggest (reduces competition) is anything but a great argument for federal rules, interstate commerce.

I didn't say it was a great argument - I was pointing out the relevant circumstances surrounding the issue. Pointing out that national decision making does not equal better. May or may not equal worse too. But ultimately too many people think it depends on whether you get to THEIR answer rather than a "right" answer....

Settle it nationally is just fine. Don't like the answer? Win elections.

this sounds like a guy who has a preference for how the national votes fall-out more than the way state level voting would play out - which implies a serious urban bias and a whole lot of confidence that the national lobbyists' interests line up well with your own.

mmm, more like a majoritarian bias, not urban versus rural. But that's not my rationale either.

My rationale is that when there's a really good argument for national rules, do it federally. Else do it at the state level. I see the interstate uniformity and efficiency as darn good reason to do at the federal level. Same for externalities that don't know borders, ie water and air pollution.

Same argument at the state vs local, if it makes considerably more sense to do state-wide, do it that way, else push down to local jurisdictions. You gonna let every town decide whether it's ok for their chemical plant to dump waste in the river? I'm guessing no.

I quite agree that lobbyist $ convolute decision-making.
If I had a magic wand, I'd change campaign financing and lobbyist rules dramatically.

But I think you may forget that lobbyists have even more direct sway at the state legislature level, and corruption at that level is even easier to get away with. All bad, but state level decisions aren't a protection from lobbyists.

HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.

You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.

HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.

You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.

we're crossing each other on the various boards... But my take boils down to a bias for making decisions as close to the problem as possible. It also dove-tails nicely with my belief that all power ends up corrupted and therefore broadly distributed small pockets of power are to preferred over highly concentrated cesspools of power. Especially when overlaid with my notion that the size and impact of power and corruption are highly correlated.

So yes, some decisions are better in DC, some in Smalltown USA.

[Seacoaster(1)]

re insurance, the rationale you suggest (reduces competition) is anything but a great argument for federal rules, interstate commerce.

I didn't say it was a great argument - I was pointing out the relevant circumstances surrounding the issue. Pointing out that national decision making does not equal better. May or may not equal worse too. But ultimately too many people think it depends on whether you get to THEIR answer rather than a "right" answer....

Settle it nationally is just fine. Don't like the answer? Win elections.

this sounds like a guy who has a preference for how the national votes fall-out more than the way state level voting would play out - which implies a serious urban bias and a whole lot of confidence that the national lobbyists' interests line up well with your own.

mmm, more like a majoritarian bias, not urban versus rural. But that's not my rationale either.

My rationale is that when there's a really good argument for national rules, do it federally. Else do it at the state level. I see the interstate uniformity and efficiency as darn good reason to do at the federal level. Same for externalities that don't know borders, ie water and air pollution.

Same argument at the state vs local, if it makes considerably more sense to do state-wide, do it that way, else push down to local jurisdictions. You gonna let every town decide whether it's ok for their chemical plant to dump waste in the river? I'm guessing no.

I quite agree that lobbyist $ convolute decision-making.
If I had a magic wand, I'd change campaign financing and lobbyist rules dramatically.

But I think you may forget that lobbyists have even more direct sway at the state legislature level, and corruption at that level is even easier to get away with. All bad, but state level decisions aren't a protection from lobbyists.

HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.

You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.

HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.

You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.

we're crossing each other on the various boards... But my take boils down to a bias for making decisions as close to the problem as possible. It also dove-tails nicely with my belief that all power ends up corrupted and therefore broadly distributed small pockets of power are to preferred over highly concentrated cesspools of power. Especially when overlaid with my notion that the size and impact of power and corruption are highly correlated.

So yes, some decisions are better in DC, some in Smalltown USA.

Yeah, we all want Texas and various little town alderman and councilors and select boards making policy for us. The history of “states’ rights” is strangely coextensive with bigotry of all flavors. Weird, right?

[MDlaxfan76]

re insurance, the rationale you suggest (reduces competition) is anything but a great argument for federal rules, interstate commerce.

I didn't say it was a great argument - I was pointing out the relevant circumstances surrounding the issue. Pointing out that national decision making does not equal better. May or may not equal worse too. But ultimately too many people think it depends on whether you get to THEIR answer rather than a "right" answer....

Settle it nationally is just fine. Don't like the answer? Win elections.

this sounds like a guy who has a preference for how the national votes fall-out more than the way state level voting would play out - which implies a serious urban bias and a whole lot of confidence that the national lobbyists' interests line up well with your own.

mmm, more like a majoritarian bias, not urban versus rural. But that's not my rationale either.

My rationale is that when there's a really good argument for national rules, do it federally. Else do it at the state level. I see the interstate uniformity and efficiency as darn good reason to do at the federal level. Same for externalities that don't know borders, ie water and air pollution.

Same argument at the state vs local, if it makes considerably more sense to do state-wide, do it that way, else push down to local jurisdictions. You gonna let every town decide whether it's ok for their chemical plant to dump waste in the river? I'm guessing no.

I quite agree that lobbyist $ convolute decision-making.
If I had a magic wand, I'd change campaign financing and lobbyist rules dramatically.

But I think you may forget that lobbyists have even more direct sway at the state legislature level, and corruption at that level is even easier to get away with. All bad, but state level decisions aren't a protection from lobbyists.

HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.

You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.

HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.

You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.

we're crossing each other on the various boards... But my take boils down to a bias for making decisions as close to the problem as possible. It also dove-tails nicely with my belief that all power ends up corrupted and therefore broadly distributed small pockets of power are to preferred over highly concentrated cesspools of power. Especially when overlaid with my notion that the size and impact of power and corruption are highly correlated.

So yes, some decisions are better in DC, some in Smalltown USA.

Understood and responded to on the other thread.

How about we take this down even closer, and let the woman, with whoever's counsel she wishes (doctor, higher power, family) make decisions about her own reproduction and health?

Why should we be ok with the State telling her what to do?

[HooDat]

Yeah, we all want Texas and various little town alderman and councilors and select boards making policy for us.

I am saying the opposite. LA, NY, Chicago, Houston & Atlanta shouldn't be setting laws for Des Moines.

How about we take this down even closer, and let the woman, with whoever's counsel she wishes (doctor, higher power, family) make decisions about her own reproduction and health?

Why should we be ok with the State telling her what to do?

You might think you are making a counter argument, but I agree 100%. My position on abortion is and always has been: it is between her, her doctor and their (respective) gods. But societies make laws. That is the law I would support. Laws don't always get written the way I would like.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yeah, we all want Texas and various little town alderman and councilors and select boards making policy for us.

I am saying the opposite. LA, NY, Chicago, Houston & Atlanta shouldn't be setting laws for Des Moines.

How about we take this down even closer, and let the woman, with whoever's counsel she wishes (doctor, higher power, family) make decisions about her own reproduction and health?

Why should we be ok with the State telling her what to do?

You might think you are making a counter argument, but I agree 100%. My position on abortion is and always has been: it is between her, her doctor and their (respective) gods. But societies make laws. That is the law I would support. Laws don't always get written the way I would like.

I'm not surprised at all, I have a quite good opinion of you based on your discourse over many years, and I'm not surprised that would be your preference. It's entirely reasonable, and yet some states' controlling politicians are radically opposed to what the majority of even their own citizens prefer...(much less the interstate implications.)

But here we are with these individual rights being stripped away under the guise of "states rights" logic.

And, protected by this right wing, states rights biased SCOTUS, the gerrymandering allows minority positions to control on such an issue, even in states where the majority of actual voters disagrees.

[HooDat]

gerrymandering allows minority positions to control on such an issue, even in states where the majority of actual voters disagrees.

This is an area where I would love to see some definitive and unbiased research done. I have seen egregious examples of gerrymandering that favors both parties - but given that the majority of states are GOP dominated, I have to imagine the abuses lean republican. But the Dems only scream about the cases that go against them, and never propose real rules to change it. Nor did the Reps when the balance of state office control was shifted.

Gerrymandering is a very good example of an issue that could be solved at the federal level - but it would take a Constitutional Amendment to do it properly.

[MDlaxfan76]

Should not have required a Constitutional amendment but look at who decided it.

Yes, both sides abuse, but it is incorrect that solutions haven’t been proposed. And only by the pro democracy folks…

[a fan]

Yeah, we all want Texas and various little town alderman and councilors and select boards making policy for us.

I am saying the opposite. LA, NY, Chicago, Houston & Atlanta shouldn't be setting laws for Des Moines.

I interpret this to mean you don't believe in Civil Rights and the Constitution. Because that's what you're saying here, whether you realize it or not.

Segregation was the result of small town America calling the shots, HooDat. The Constitution said "yeah, sorry mate, you can't do that".

I don't want to go back that....yet that's what our Court is doing.

Our Constitution isn't supposed to be up for a popular vote. And I have ZERO interest in finding out what the people of Des Moines want to tell me I can't do as an American.

[HooDat]

Yeah, we all want Texas and various little town alderman and councilors and select boards making policy for us.

I am saying the opposite. LA, NY, Chicago, Houston & Atlanta shouldn't be setting laws for Des Moines.

I interpret this to mean you don't believe in Civil Rights and the Constitution. Because that's what you're saying here, whether you realize it or not.

Segregation was the result of small town America calling the shots, HooDat. The Constitution said "yeah, sorry mate, you can't do that".

I don't want to go back that....yet that's what our Court is doing.

Our Constitution isn't supposed to be up for a popular vote. And I have ZERO interest in finding out what the people of Des Moines want to tell me I can't do as an American.

I have absolutely no idea how you can come the conclusion that because I support pushing decision making to the most local level practicable that I don't believe in Civil Rights or the Constitution. It is most definitely NOT what I am saying, nor is it even implied in what I said (or think for that matter).

Just as much as I don't want LA deciding how folks in Des Moines have to live, I don't want the people in Des Moines telling the people in LA how to live.

We have a political framework that started as a pure republic of united States. Post civil war and even more under FDR the pendulum was swung heavily toward centralized power. I have been very clear on my belief that decision making should be made as locally as practical. We have a Constitution that I believe in very strongly. We have methods for establishing national laws rather than state or local. I don't think ANY process is perfect, because people aren't perfect. The best you can do is set up a framework that you think positions you for the best outcomes over time and observe, learn from your mistakes and hope to convince others of your way of thinking. I like local, I see value in the decision makers having a real chance of having to look the people impacted by their decisions in the eye.

All that said, I don't get how you make the leap to me saying I want the Constitution up for a popular vote. I don't like the outcome of every decision this court is making, but I do like the fact that the SCOTUS is telling Congress - do your F'ing job and quit asking us to make up laws for you.Their penchant for over-turning longstanding precedent is obviously disruptive, but our system has all the pieces to let us get to the right answers - through honest debate and by following the rules set out in the Constitution.

[Typical Lax Dad]

All these problems started post civil war and got worse under FDR and the next logical step is that the 1960’s resulted in this country becoming so far removed from what was started that we need to get back to it…. That’s what it seems to be implied. The feds need to let each state decide what laws it wants.

I don’t want to go back to that.

[HooDat]

All these problems started post civil war and got worse under FDR and the next logical step is that the 1960’s resulted in this country becoming so far removed from what was started that we need to get back to it…. That’s what it seems to be implied. The feds need to let each state decide what laws it wants.

I don’t want to go back to that.

Then vote accordingly and make logical arguments for not going back.

I get that a lot of very good things have happened over the time period we are discussing. A lot of wrongs were righted. And I can't argue against the fact that we are all better off for them having been righted sooner rather than later - nor do I have an interest in making that argument.

But I also think there are some unintended negatives that stowed away on those good intentions.

Everything isn't an absolute. I am not making an argument for one extreme over another - extremes are ... well.... extreme. People and societies are very, very complex. A country as large, wealthy and powerful as the US is very complex. I am arguing that the pendulum swung too far to Centralized Power and that we would benefit from a shift toward the middle.

Just because great things were accomplished in the swing to centralized power (if you want to call acknowledging basic human decency "great") doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from a bit more localized power. I resent the implications that I am calling for a return to slavery if I say I think decisions are best made as close to the problem as practical.

Are you really that scared that Des Moines might have a different drinking age than LA?

[Typical Lax Dad]

All these problems started post civil war and got worse under FDR and the next logical step is that the 1960’s resulted in this country becoming so far removed from what was started that we need to get back to it…. That’s what it seems to be implied. The feds need to let each state decide what laws it wants.

I don’t want to go back to that.

Then vote accordingly and make logical arguments for not going back.

I get that a lot of very good things have happened over the time period we are discussing. A lot of wrongs were righted. And I can't argue against the fact that we are all better off for them having been righted sooner rather than later - nor do I have an interest in making that argument.

But I also think there are some unintended negatives that stowed away on those good intentions.

Everything isn't an absolute. I am not making an argument for one extreme over another - extremes are ... well.... extreme. People and societies are very, very complex. A country as large, wealthy and powerful as the US is very complex. I am arguing that the pendulum swung too far to Centralized Power and that we would benefit from a shift toward the middle.

Just because great things were accomplished in the swing to centralized power (if you want to call acknowledging basic human decency "great") doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from a bit more localized power. I resent the implications that I am calling for a return to slavery if I say I think decisions are best made as close to the problem as practical.

Are you really that scared that Des Moines might have a different drinking age than LA?

Positives and negatives. On balance we are all better off. I have family from Des Moines and LA, ironically. I don’t mind how this country has progressed. We have enough of a balance. What are folks doing in Des Moines that was dictated by Los Angeles? Give me three examples of policy decision in LA being applied to Des Moines.

I don’t want to go back to Jim Crow or poll taxes or any other number of things that “the people in those states” wanted. I want some federal and court oversight.

Ironically this kick it back to the states that you seem to be pleased about has little to do with the court finally waking up and turning the ball back over to the States and everything to do with Right Wing judicial activism that started 50 years ago. Basically political appointees now there to serve. Yeah the 1960s was just judicial activism. It was a mistake…..and yeah, you are just a libertarian calling balls and strikes. I have heard it 1,000 times.

[HooDat]

All these problems started post civil war and got worse under FDR and the next logical step is that the 1960’s resulted in this country becoming so far removed from what was started that we need to get back to it…. That’s what it seems to be implied. The feds need to let each state decide what laws it wants.

I don’t want to go back to that.

Then vote accordingly and make logical arguments for not going back.

I get that a lot of very good things have happened over the time period we are discussing. A lot of wrongs were righted. And I can't argue against the fact that we are all better off for them having been righted sooner rather than later - nor do I have an interest in making that argument.

But I also think there are some unintended negatives that stowed away on those good intentions.

Everything isn't an absolute. I am not making an argument for one extreme over another - extremes are ... well.... extreme. People and societies are very, very complex. A country as large, wealthy and powerful as the US is very complex. I am arguing that the pendulum swung too far to Centralized Power and that we would benefit from a shift toward the middle.

Just because great things were accomplished in the swing to centralized power (if you want to call acknowledging basic human decency "great") doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from a bit more localized power. I resent the implications that I am calling for a return to slavery if I say I think decisions are best made as close to the problem as practical.

Are you really that scared that Des Moines might have a different drinking age than LA?

Positives and negatives. On balance we are all better off. I have family from Des Moines and LA, ironically. I don’t mind how this country has progressed. We have enough of a balance. What are folks doing in Des Moines that was dictated by Los Angeles? Give me three examples of policy decision in LA being applied to Des Moines.

I don’t want to go back to Jim Crow or poll taxes or any other number of things that “the people in those states” wanted. I want some federal and court oversight.

Ironically this kick it back to the states that you seem to be pleased about has little to do with the court finally waking up and turning the ball back over to the States and everything to do with Right Wing judicial activism that started 50 years ago. Basically political appointees now there to serve. Yeah the 1960s was just judicial activism. It was a mistake…..and yeah, you are just a libertarian calling balls and strikes. I have heard it 1,000 times.

I am not a libertarian in the least. Libertarianism is the land of the tragically uniformed. How can you govern on the foundation of NOT governing? You want to be an anarchist - knock yourself out, but don't come at me with "make me your politician and I won't do anything", that is just stupid....

Why does the idea of states having more power have to immediately equal Jim Crow? That is a sophist argument.

With a little time I am sure I could give you a lot more than three policy decisions made in LA that impacted Des Moines. I am not saying these are bad, I am just saying that they were effectively foisted upon the country by LA's combination of buying power and ability to make local regulatory decisions (which ironically, is actually what I am calling for just in different packaging). Here are a few that pop to mind immediately:
- auto mpg standards
- lead free gasoline
- various labeling disclosures for potentially cancerous substances

[Typical Lax Dad]

All these problems started post civil war and got worse under FDR and the next logical step is that the 1960’s resulted in this country becoming so far removed from what was started that we need to get back to it…. That’s what it seems to be implied. The feds need to let each state decide what laws it wants.

I don’t want to go back to that.

Then vote accordingly and make logical arguments for not going back.

I get that a lot of very good things have happened over the time period we are discussing. A lot of wrongs were righted. And I can't argue against the fact that we are all better off for them having been righted sooner rather than later - nor do I have an interest in making that argument.

But I also think there are some unintended negatives that stowed away on those good intentions.

Everything isn't an absolute. I am not making an argument for one extreme over another - extremes are ... well.... extreme. People and societies are very, very complex. A country as large, wealthy and powerful as the US is very complex. I am arguing that the pendulum swung too far to Centralized Power and that we would benefit from a shift toward the middle.

Just because great things were accomplished in the swing to centralized power (if you want to call acknowledging basic human decency "great") doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from a bit more localized power. I resent the implications that I am calling for a return to slavery if I say I think decisions are best made as close to the problem as practical.

Are you really that scared that Des Moines might have a different drinking age than LA?

Positives and negatives. On balance we are all better off. I have family from Des Moines and LA, ironically. I don’t mind how this country has progressed. We have enough of a balance. What are folks doing in Des Moines that was dictated by Los Angeles? Give me three examples of policy decision in LA being applied to Des Moines.

I don’t want to go back to Jim Crow or poll taxes or any other number of things that “the people in those states” wanted. I want some federal and court oversight.

Ironically this kick it back to the states that you seem to be pleased about has little to do with the court finally waking up and turning the ball back over to the States and everything to do with Right Wing judicial activism that started 50 years ago. Basically political appointees now there to serve. Yeah the 1960s was just judicial activism. It was a mistake…..and yeah, you are just a libertarian calling balls and strikes. I have heard it 1,000 times.

I am not a libertarian in the least. Libertarianism is the land of the tragically uniformed. How can you govern on the foundation of NOT governing? You want to be an anarchist - knock yourself out, but don't come at me with "make me your politician and I won't do anything", that is just stupid....

Why does the idea of states having more power have to immediately equal Jim Crow? That is a sophist argument.

With a little time I am sure I could give you a lot more than three policy decisions made in LA that impacted Des Moines. I am not saying these are bad, I am just saying that they were effectively foisted upon the country by LA's combination of buying power and ability to make local regulatory decisions (which ironically, is actually what I am calling for just in different packaging). Here are a few that pop to mind immediately:
- auto mpg standards
- lead free gasoline
- various labeling disclosures for potentially cancerous substances

“Jim Crow” is a euphemism that can take different forms but is essential the same…..and who is to say 100 years from now as more and more people die off and rights are slowly rolled back that you can’t end up with something like that again? You have to see far…. (100 years isn’t far either). I like how things have turned out. I don’t want my rights diminished because of what State I live in. I am an American…not a Virginian. I know its sophomoric but it is how I feel.

[HooDat]

“Jim Crow” is a euphemism that can take different forms but is essential the same…..and who is to say 100 years from now as more and more people die off and rights are slowly rolled back that you can’t end up with something like that again? You have to see far…. (100 years isn’t far either). I like how things have turned out. I don’t want my rights diminished because of what State I live in. I am an American…not a Virginian. I know its sophomoric but it is how I feel.

I get that it is a euphemism - and it is very, very charged euphemism.

But - who is to say that a more centralized system doesn't lead us to a far worse point 100 years from now? What if Trump wins in 2024, and the white christian nationalists manage to control our federal government from that point forward - how do you feel about state's rights then? It is about the better process not the short term results (and yes, as you said, it is the long run we have to be focused on).

I have lived (and voted) in five states. I too consider myself an American - one who happens to believe that this greatest political experiment of all time works best when it isn't being controlled from one or even 5/10/25 cities. That leads to too much group think, too much myopathy.

[Typical Lax Dad]

“Jim Crow” is a euphemism that can take different forms but is essential the same…..and who is to say 100 years from now as more and more people die off and rights are slowly rolled back that you can’t end up with something like that again? You have to see far…. (100 years isn’t far either). I like how things have turned out. I don’t want my rights diminished because of what State I live in. I am an American…not a Virginian. I know its sophomoric but it is how I feel.

I get that it is a euphemism - and it is very, very charged euphemism.

But - who is to say that a more centralized system doesn't lead us to a far worse point 100 years from now? What if Trump wins in 2024, and the white christian nationalists manage to control our federal government from that point forward - how do you feel about state's rights then? It is about the better process not the short term results (and yes, as you said, it is the long run we have to be focused on).

I have lived (and voted) in five states. I too consider myself an American - one who happens to believe that this greatest political experiment of all time works best when it isn't being controlled from one or even 5/10/25 cities. That leads to too much group think, too much myopathy.

I am going to cross my fingers and hope that what got us to this point continues to work because I have seen what happened when States called their own shots. Women may have to use an under ground railroad before we know it. Already happening. You didn’t give me any examples of how what Chicago wants is applied to Baton Rouge. The charged euphemism is based on facts, is it not?

America First.

[MDlaxfan76]

I think this is a useful discussion.

I read HooDat as saying that some decisions may be better made at a local level in which accountability may be more present. From a simply philosophical position, this sounds reasonable.

On the other hand, it's not being disputed that local decisions about some other matters have been the opposite of "accountable" in that many people were disenfranchised in all sorts of ways, with 'accountability' only to those with the power. No accountability to those without such power.

We can come up with all sorts of examples, both historically and around the world, in which "local" choices made by those in power "locally" are really rather awful.

Would stoning as a punishment for a woman's infidelity be ok simply because a town or state decided that they didn't like women cheating on their husbands? (I for one don't like the idea of women cheating on their husbands, so...)

Again, it's quite easy for us to agree on many, many such examples in which we would say, 'oh no, we need to protect individuals from the power of the mob or from the powerful in control"...so, we look to federal government for legislation and executive support, and most importantly we look to the Constitution as amended and as interpreted by the judiciary. Most often, the support that is necessary can only come from the Constitutional protections.

And, at least for most of the past 150 or so years, the judiciary has progressively supported individual rights and autonomy, whether at the federal, state, or local level. As cases were brought seeking such protection against discrimination and bigotry and invasion of privacy, the judiciary has progressively sided with expansion of protection from the tyranny of the mob, the power of the state.

That's recently been reversed, and with at least one Justice baldly declaring that individual autonomy and rights have no real Constitutional basis for protection, and that only states (local) should have the power to make such decisions for their citizens. Under this new "interpretation", the Federal government has no authority to protect individual rights, only the States do...and they needn't do so...

Don't like it, complain to your state legislators...but no protection.
The "State" gets to decide what protections it wants to grant or remove.