3 ms·

And this is why most policy should be relegated to the states. But try making that argument and you'll be branded a nutty conservative. But really, the states

And this is why most policy should be relegated to the states. But try making that argument and you'll be branded a nutty conservative. But really, the states have always had the authority to do what people nowadays want the feds to do. Universal healthcare? The states are allowed to provide that. universal basic income? The states can do that too. Lower the drinking age? Yup, states can do that. No one needs to wait for the federal government to 'approve' or 'allow' your state to do something. The states have ultimate, pretty much absolute authority.

smcg 7y ago
Just because they technically "can" doesn't mean they actually can. Universal healthcare requires high buy-in and very different systems from what we have now. Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > Universal healthcare requires high buy-in and very different systems from what we have now. States can regulate all of them. They are under no requirement to follow federal policy. In fact, they can even erect pretty substantial border controls (like California does) and send armies to protect their borders, if they really want to (yes this has actually been done outside the civil war). For example, California recently 'threatened' to start universal health care. I'm unsure why the news framed it this way given that it has always been california's right to provide free health care to its citizens, and no one can really legally stop it. Perhaps California cannot raise enough money to do so, but that is an issue of feasibility, not legality. It's not like the feds would magically be able to raise money that California couldn't. > Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age. Um sure, but states are not required to take federal funding for highways. That's like saying 'Aunt Irma requires me to send her a Thank You note whenever I ask for her knit sweaters', while neglecting to mention that you actually do want the knit sweaters because they keep you warm and cozy.
- jrs235 7y ago
  >Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age. Federal mandates for funds exist because the 17th amendment took away State governments representation and handed to popular human vote. Few Senators faithfully representing their State would pass mandates telling their own government they must comply or not get money. They'd likely get removed or replaced with someone else by the state government that put them there.
eli_gottlieb 7y ago
>Lower the drinking age? Yup, states can do that. The federal government passed a law in 1984 stripping states of their highway funding if they didn't put a floor under the drinking age at 21.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > The federal government passed a law in 1984 stripping states of their highway funding if they didn't put a floor under the drinking age at 21. That doesn't actually change the fact that states have every right to change the drinking age. Obviously states do not have a right to federal government funds. However, if a state doesn't care for government funds, they are free to make their laws as they please. The feds have not made it illegal for states to do so (and they couldn't even if they tried). I would really suggest responding to my comment as stated. I said: > the states have always had the authority to do what people nowadays want the feds to do Nothing about the contingency of federal highway funding takes away from the fact that states still retain the authority to set drinking ages as they see fit. The feds have the authority to spend their money how they see fit. That's how this whole thing works, believe it or not.
chrisdhoover 7y ago
There is no consistency of political philosophy. If you want to limit access to abortions at the state level you are a nutty republican. If you want to limit access to firearms at the state level you are a nutty democrat. Or replace nutty with heroic depending what single issue you support.

smcg 7y ago

Just because they technically "can" doesn't mean they actually can. Universal healthcare requires high buy-in and very different systems from what we have now. Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age.

tathougies 7y ago
> Universal healthcare requires high buy-in and very different systems from what we have now. States can regulate all of them. They are under no requirement to follow federal policy. In fact, they can even erect pretty substantial border controls (like California does) and send armies to protect their borders, if they really want to (yes this has actually been done outside the civil war). For example, California recently 'threatened' to start universal health care. I'm unsure why the news framed it this way given that it has always been california's right to provide free health care to its citizens, and no one can really legally stop it. Perhaps California cannot raise enough money to do so, but that is an issue of feasibility, not legality. It's not like the feds would magically be able to raise money that California couldn't. > Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age. Um sure, but states are not required to take federal funding for highways. That's like saying 'Aunt Irma requires me to send her a Thank You note whenever I ask for her knit sweaters', while neglecting to mention that you actually do want the knit sweaters because they keep you warm and cozy.
jrs235 7y ago
>Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age. Federal mandates for funds exist because the 17th amendment took away State governments representation and handed to popular human vote. Few Senators faithfully representing their State would pass mandates telling their own government they must comply or not get money. They'd likely get removed or replaced with someone else by the state government that put them there.

eli_gottlieb 7y ago

>Lower the drinking age? Yup, states can do that. The federal government passed a law in 1984 stripping states of their highway funding if they didn't put a floor under the drinking age at 21.

tathougies 7y ago
> The federal government passed a law in 1984 stripping states of their highway funding if they didn't put a floor under the drinking age at 21. That doesn't actually change the fact that states have every right to change the drinking age. Obviously states do not have a right to federal government funds. However, if a state doesn't care for government funds, they are free to make their laws as they please. The feds have not made it illegal for states to do so (and they couldn't even if they tried). I would really suggest responding to my comment as stated. I said: > the states have always had the authority to do what people nowadays want the feds to do Nothing about the contingency of federal highway funding takes away from the fact that states still retain the authority to set drinking ages as they see fit. The feds have the authority to spend their money how they see fit. That's how this whole thing works, believe it or not.

chrisdhoover 7y ago

There is no consistency of political philosophy. If you want to limit access to abortions at the state level you are a nutty republican. If you want to limit access to firearms at the state level you are a nutty democrat. Or replace nutty with heroic depending what single issue you support.