3 ms·
> With Roe V Wade overturned recently, this seems a bit tone deaf. The beliefs are being much more than represented, they’re being mandated and legislated and p
by seneca 4y ago
> With Roe V Wade overturned recently, this seems a bit tone deaf. The beliefs are being much more than represented, they’re being mandated and legislated and protected unfairly.
This is actually the opposite of reality. Roe was the mandate of one belief over the entire country, legislated from the bench no less. Overturning it is a return to federalism, and allows each state to decide which beliefs it wants to uphold.
- whatshisface 4y agoWe probably shouldn't turn this into a Roe v Wade thread, but perhaps they were talking about the state legislation released by the court, which is applied equally to the people who want or don't want it and is not a result of a popular vote.
- seneca 4y ago> We probably shouldn't turn this into a Roe v Wade thread Yes, you're probably right. It's not likely to be productive. > ... but perhaps they were talking about the state legislation released by the court, which is applied equally to the people who want or don't want it and is not a result of a popular vote. Perhaps, but it doesn't read that way. Even if it were, that would just be lamenting representative democracy. Maybe a better point than the one that actually seems to have been made, but also probably not a particularly productive conversation.
- whatshisface 4y agoEven a direct democracy can violate the rights of 49% of its voters. That's why we have a concept of inalienable rights and a semi-aristocratic branch of government that is supposed to be a check on violations of them.
- adenozine 4y agoWell shit, why stop there then? Let’s peel back the FDA and let the state decide what food is safe. Let’s peel back the DMV and just let states decide who is fit to drive and let each state run their own database. While we’re at it, let’s go ahead and lose the IRS and let states collect our taxes up. Federalism just works! (tm)
- User23 4y agoSerious question: are you joking or is this sarcasm? The states can and do regulate food safety. The states, not the federal government, govern motor vehicle licensing. And finally the states do collect taxes. In fact the constitution even permits the federal government to levy an apportioned tax on the states and leave it up to them on how to come up with the money.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> Let’s peel back the DMV and just let states decide who is fit to drive and let each state run their own database. That is what we do.
- reaperducer 4y agoLet’s peel back the FDA and let the state decide what food is safe For many foods, we still do. It's why you sometimes see "Registered with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture" printed on packages. (Usually abbreviated to something like "Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.") Sometimes particular states set standards that all the other states, or an entire industry, follows. When they (used to?) give away cars on TV game shows, the announcer always lists "California emissions" in the description of the car.
- dvt 4y agoWhat a weird post. This is lirerally how the US government works.
- dvt 4y agoSmall correction: this would be a return to anti-federalism (statism).
- seneca 4y agoIronically, the way the phrase is applied depends on the time period. Historically, federalism meant what you're saying. That is to say Jay and Hamilton were Federalists, and advocated a strong federal government. In modern parlance Federalism generally means the opposite: being strongly in favor of states rights. You'll also see this called "new federalism". The explanation for this is that Federalism is about balance of power, and the phrase is generally used to indicate policy that would return a stronger balance. Currently (since the Civil War in particular) the federal government is extremely strong, whereas historically, in the time of the Federalist Papers, it was extremely weak.