4 ms·
> It seems like every time I see a state government clash with the federal government, it's always the state trying to protect some backward law. For basically
by sbov 10y ago
> It seems like every time I see a state government clash with the federal government, it's always the state trying to protect some backward law.
For basically every progressive ideal, none of it is pioneered by the federal government.
Gay marriage, legalization of drugs, continuing environmental standards, renewable energy, more sustainable living, and I'm sure many more, are all things that various states pass laws surrounding before the federal government steps in.
- dragonwriter 10y agoOf those you enumerate, however, only drug legalization is an action taken by the state that has needed defending against contrary federal legislation or court action. Unless, on gay marriage, you are referring to the state-level efforts to prohibit same-sex marriage rather than those to allow it.
- sbov 10y agoTrue, I quoted the wrong part of the OP. It's more about why state autonomy could be seen as worth protecting.
- Vraxx 10y agoThe thing is, none of this is pioneered by the federal government because "it isn't their job/place" because we have the state governments that are supposed to pioneer these things. I don't think that is an argument on it's own. I will add though that I think the smaller state governments add benefit by allowing progressive changes like this to take hold and see how it turns out in a small "experiment".