5 ms·

> Unfortunately, Commerce Clause abuse and the effective neutralization of the 10th Amendment has created the opposite situation where the government can do any

> Unfortunately, Commerce Clause abuse and the effective neutralization of the 10th Amendment has created the opposite situation where the government can do anything it wants as long as it isn't specifically prohibited, and citizens are only guaranteed rights if they are specified. I mean, that's true, but it's also true that it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump forward at the same time, particularly when corporations comparatively have no hurdles at all over the same geographic region. Getting 50 of anything to do something at the same time is nearly impossible. If we want to do something about many significant, widespread problems, we need the power of a centralized Federal government. As the saying goes, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Our Constitution wasn't written with the management of 50 states and citizens numbering nearly 350 million in mind. Our founding fathers expected that there would have been multiple constitutional conventions by this time. It's easy to see the dilution of individual voices[0]. Our founding fathers though that one representative for every 40,000 individuals was inadequate, and changed it to be closer to one for every 30,000. Today, it's one for every 700,000 on average. No, I don't think that adding more representatives would help the problem, but our political system, invented in the 18th century, is nearly overwhelmed by the sheer volume of people in this nation. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_ap...

whoopdedo 8y ago
No, I don't think that adding more representatives would help the problem I think it would. Along with creating more slots for minority candidates to get elected in. There's also the matter of the cost of lobbying. Right now lobbying is dirt cheap because you can spend a very little amount of money to influence one representative and that one vote in congress can have a huge effect. If there were more people voting in congress the value of that one person would be reduced. The lobbyist would have to work to get multiple congressmen to have the same influence which makes bribery less cost effective than it currently is.
umanwizard 8y ago
Well then, how does the EU (whose central authority is extremely limited in scope compared to the US Federal Government, and whose member states are still meaningfully sovereign separate countries) manage to thrive so well? Why couldn't a similar system work well in the US?
- da_chicken 8y ago
  Have you not heard Europeans talk about the EU? Pretty much everyone agrees that it's slow, cumbersome, and doesn't address a lot of problems quickly enough. It's also significantly more complex[0] by further dividing the executive position, compared to the American system, and it's only got 28 states. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:Organs_of_the_European_Union.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:Org...
jeffdavis 8y ago
For most issues, there is really no need for all 50 states to act at once. In practice, the federal government exercises it's extraconstitutional authority for all kinds of things which could be done much better at the state level. For instance, making drugs illegal (accounts for most federal prisoners) and running social welfare programs (accounts for most federal spending). If something really is an important power the federal government must have (maybe some kinds of environmental regulation powers?), then make an amendment that clearly scopes the boundaries of that new power.
int_19h 8y ago
> I mean, that's true, but it's also true that it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump forward at the same time To what extent do we actually need to have all states do exactly the same? It's a common argument, but there are many independent sovereign states out there that are smaller than many of US states, and they're doing fine solving their national problems despite their size. Sometimes - quite often - that happens with cooperation with other states, but such cooperation does not require an overarching government entity. Sure, that means that US would not be a state in a sense that, say, France is a state, with a strong national identity and uniform politics. But does it have to be? I would argue that there is no truly democratic way to rule 300 million people from a single center, and decentralization is key to real democracy. Conversely, I don't see why my ideas and values have to be pushed on someone in the opposite corner of the country, but not, say, across the border into Canada. > As the saying goes, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Whose saying? Last time I remember hearing that everywhere, it was to justify stuff like the PATRIOT Act and other post-9/11 abuses. > Our Constitution wasn't written with the management of 50 states and citizens numbering nearly 350 million in mind. Our founding fathers expected that there would have been multiple constitutional conventions by this time. It's easy to see the dilution of individual voices[0]. Our founding fathers though that one representative for every 40,000 individuals was inadequate, and changed it to be closer to one for every 30,000. Today, it's one for every 700,000 on average. The even bigger difference is that those representatives then go and vote on far more issues than they did when the system was originally devised, which increases the dilution of individual voices, by bringing more important issues to the level where their vote is at it most diluted - as opposed to state level. Of course it's going to be overwhelmed.
- adt2bt 8y ago
  > The even bigger difference is that those representatives then go and vote on far more issues than they did when the system was originally devised, which increases the dilution of individual voices, by bringing more important issues to the level where their vote is at it most diluted - as opposed to state level. Of course it's going to be overwhelmed. Part of the reason the issue has gotten out of hand is the relative weakness of states to enforce the cost of negative externalities on business. As soon as one state passes regulations, it’s too easy for many companies to pack up and leave for ‘greener’ pastures where the politicians would rather tout economic improvement at the expense of those negative externalities. As a result, problems like this often end up hoisted to the next level of government to solve issues in a more equal manner. Just look at the ways cities were tripping over themselves to look attractive to Amazon for HQ2 to see this phenomenon in action.
BurningFrog 8y ago
> it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump forward at the same time The great thing with this system is that it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump backwards at the same time. Some places will always remain sane, even in the darkest hours. That is the greatness of a decentralized system!!

whoopdedo 8y ago

No, I don't think that adding more representatives would help the problem I think it would. Along with creating more slots for minority candidates to get elected in. There's also the matter of the cost of lobbying. Right now lobbying is dirt cheap because you can spend a very little amount of money to influence one representative and that one vote in congress can have a huge effect. If there were more people voting in congress the value of that one person would be reduced. The lobbyist would have to work to get multiple congressmen to have the same influence which makes bribery less cost effective than it currently is.

umanwizard 8y ago

Well then, how does the EU (whose central authority is extremely limited in scope compared to the US Federal Government, and whose member states are still meaningfully sovereign separate countries) manage to thrive so well? Why couldn't a similar system work well in the US?

da_chicken 8y ago
Have you not heard Europeans talk about the EU? Pretty much everyone agrees that it's slow, cumbersome, and doesn't address a lot of problems quickly enough. It's also significantly more complex[0] by further dividing the executive position, compared to the American system, and it's only got 28 states. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:Organs_of_the_European_Union.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:Org...

jeffdavis 8y ago

For most issues, there is really no need for all 50 states to act at once. In practice, the federal government exercises it's extraconstitutional authority for all kinds of things which could be done much better at the state level. For instance, making drugs illegal (accounts for most federal prisoners) and running social welfare programs (accounts for most federal spending). If something really is an important power the federal government must have (maybe some kinds of environmental regulation powers?), then make an amendment that clearly scopes the boundaries of that new power.

int_19h 8y ago

> I mean, that's true, but it's also true that it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump forward at the same time To what extent do we actually need to have all states do exactly the same? It's a common argument, but there are many independent sovereign states out there that are smaller than many of US states, and they're doing fine solving their national problems despite their size. Sometimes - quite often - that happens with cooperation with other states, but such cooperation does not require an overarching government entity. Sure, that means that US would not be a state in a sense that, say, France is a state, with a strong national identity and uniform politics. But does it have to be? I would argue that there is no truly democratic way to rule 300 million people from a single center, and decentralization is key to real democracy. Conversely, I don't see why my ideas and values have to be pushed on someone in the opposite corner of the country, but not, say, across the border into Canada. > As the saying goes, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Whose saying? Last time I remember hearing that everywhere, it was to justify stuff like the PATRIOT Act and other post-9/11 abuses. > Our Constitution wasn't written with the management of 50 states and citizens numbering nearly 350 million in mind. Our founding fathers expected that there would have been multiple constitutional conventions by this time. It's easy to see the dilution of individual voices[0]. Our founding fathers though that one representative for every 40,000 individuals was inadequate, and changed it to be closer to one for every 30,000. Today, it's one for every 700,000 on average. The even bigger difference is that those representatives then go and vote on far more issues than they did when the system was originally devised, which increases the dilution of individual voices, by bringing more important issues to the level where their vote is at it most diluted - as opposed to state level. Of course it's going to be overwhelmed.

adt2bt 8y ago
> The even bigger difference is that those representatives then go and vote on far more issues than they did when the system was originally devised, which increases the dilution of individual voices, by bringing more important issues to the level where their vote is at it most diluted - as opposed to state level. Of course it's going to be overwhelmed. Part of the reason the issue has gotten out of hand is the relative weakness of states to enforce the cost of negative externalities on business. As soon as one state passes regulations, it’s too easy for many companies to pack up and leave for ‘greener’ pastures where the politicians would rather tout economic improvement at the expense of those negative externalities. As a result, problems like this often end up hoisted to the next level of government to solve issues in a more equal manner. Just look at the ways cities were tripping over themselves to look attractive to Amazon for HQ2 to see this phenomenon in action.

BurningFrog 8y ago

> it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump forward at the same time The great thing with this system is that it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump backwards at the same time. Some places will always remain sane, even in the darkest hours. That is the greatness of a decentralized system!!