PDA

View Full Version : Should the States be eliminated in favor of Congressional Districts?



nathanbforrest45
11-08-2013, 10:53 AM
We are the United States of America because we were originally thirteen COLONIES, each with a separate background and goals. The only unifying factor was they were all colonies of England, shared a a common language, religion and outlook. The 13 colonies were for all practical purposes potentially 13 separate countries. They could very easily decided not to band together after the War for Independence was won. Until after the American Civil War people did not think of themselves as Americans first but Alabamians, or Ohioans or New Yorkers. It wasn't until after the nullification of the 10th Amendment that the concept of a unified Union of separate states became ONE NATION.

It may very well be that the march of progress demands an end to the very fiction of separate states and a system of "Congressional Districts" be established in its place. Governors and state legislatures can be replaced with direct congressional control over the various districts. All districts would then be subject to the same laws as every other district. No longer would we see gay marriage be illegal in some states but legal in others. No longer would an area have the right to establish its own laws against the wishes of Congress or the Administration. Furthermore, no longer would some areas mooch off other areas by getting more back from Washington than they pay in taxes.

I'm all for it just as I would be for the outlawing of the Republican and Tea Parties.

Cigar
11-08-2013, 10:54 AM
Stop Crying, you only lost an Election, Twice :laugh:

nathanbforrest45
11-08-2013, 10:57 AM
Stop Crying, you only lost an Election, Twice :laugh:
I am not crying I am asking a legitimate question. If you weren't such a head up your ass partisan hack you would understand the question.

Cigar
11-08-2013, 10:59 AM
I am not crying I am asking a legitimate question. If you weren't such a head up your ass partisan hack you would understand the question.

It's the Year 2013 ... Wake Up; Change has Come to America

nathanbforrest45
11-08-2013, 11:01 AM
It's the Year 2013 ... Wake Up; Change has Come to America
How is that a legitimate response to my question

Chris
11-08-2013, 11:08 AM
It is an interesting question. I like the idea of giving more political power to smaller, more local areas. But I think though that like the 17th amendment it would reduce even further the remaining power of the states and encourage even more populist partisanship.

There's been news lately of Colorado splitting into two states, that might be an alternative, to have more states.

nathanbforrest45
11-08-2013, 11:33 AM
It is an interesting question. I like the idea of giving more political power to smaller, more local areas. But I think though that like the 17th amendment it would reduce even further the remaining power of the states and encourage even more populist partisanship.

There's been news lately of Colorado splitting into two states, that might be an alternative, to have more states.


That could be unconstitutional, not that it really matters anymore
ABOUT LII (http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/about/about_lii) / GET THE LAW (http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/get_the_law) / FIND A LAWYER (http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/) / LEGAL ENCYCLOPEDIA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex) / HELP OUT (http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/help_out)






Section 3



New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

jillian
11-08-2013, 11:37 AM
It is an interesting question. I like the idea of giving more political power to smaller, more local areas. But I think though that like the 17th amendment it would reduce even further the remaining power of the states and encourage even more populist partisanship.

There's been news lately of Colorado splitting into two states, that might be an alternative, to have more states.

it's unconstitutional.

nathanbforrest45
11-08-2013, 11:38 AM
it's unconstitutional.
It may be as I pointed out. However if the state legislature agrees and Congress agrees its entirely constitutional. That is how West Virginia came into being.

jillian
11-08-2013, 11:41 AM
It may be as I pointed out. However if the state legislature agrees and Congress agrees its entirely constitutional. That is how West Virginia came into being.

not "may be"... IS...

and would require a constitutional amendment. and if you think the states are agreeing to that BS, you're sadly mistaken.

get over it.

jillian
11-08-2013, 11:45 AM
not "may be"... IS...

and would require a constitutional amendment. and if you think the states are agreeing to that BS, you're sadly mistaken.

get over it.


and i don't think the secessionists in virginia complained that the free state of west virginia didn't rejoin them after the war. but that has zero to do with reconfiguring the entire operation of our government absent a constitutional amendment.

nic34
11-08-2013, 12:06 PM
Gerrymander the nation, yeah, right, sure.....always lookig for an angle these repubs....

fyrenza
11-08-2013, 12:12 PM
Though I like the idea of The Law being The Law of the (entire) LAND,

wouldn't that, in essence, make the federal gov all-powerful?

nathanbforrest45
11-08-2013, 12:14 PM
not "may be"... IS...

and would require a constitutional amendment. and if you think the states are agreeing to that BS, you're sadly mistaken.


Perhaps we are talking about two different things here. I am speaking of Colorado's ability to split in two. What are you speaking of? If you mean the entire issue of doing away with the states requiring a Constitutional Amendment, well, that goes without saying that would be the least of the requirements. More than likely it would require a new constitution.

Please realize this is a question of should this be done vs can this be done. If it makes sense to do so then a way to effect it could be found.
get over it.

Chris
11-08-2013, 12:16 PM
That could be unconstitutional, not that it really matters anymore
ABOUT LII (http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/about/about_lii) / GET THE LAW (http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/get_the_law) / FIND A LAWYER (http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/) / LEGAL ENCYCLOPEDIA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex) / HELP OUT (http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/help_out)






Section 3



New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.



















Good catch, indeed, it would be.

nathanbforrest45
11-08-2013, 12:16 PM
Though I like the idea of The Law being The Law of the (entire) LAND,

wouldn't that, in essence, make the federal gov all-powerful?

Yes it would and that would of course fly in the face of the entire Federalist Paper's argument. Unlike our uberpartisan friend above I would think that would appeal more to the Progressives in our midst than in the States Rights crowd on the right. I may be wrong and up may be down for all I know

Chris
11-08-2013, 12:19 PM
It may be as I pointed out. However if the state legislature agrees and Congress agrees its entirely constitutional. That is how West Virginia came into being.


not "may be"... IS...

and would require a constitutional amendment. and if you think the states are agreeing to that BS, you're sadly mistaken.

get over it.



No, he's correct, read the Constitution, it does allow for it with "the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress".

I doubt it would happen but who knows, as nathan points out, there is West Virginia.

fyrenza
11-08-2013, 12:23 PM
Well, alrighty then!

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee57/Fyrenza/Forum%20Stuff/ExcellentCatapillar_zpsdd88a967.jpg (http://s235.photobucket.com/user/Fyrenza/media/Forum%20Stuff/ExcellentCatapillar_zpsdd88a967.jpg.html)

We'll just get a con to suggest ALL of the things that the libs should want,

KNOWING that, dumbasses that they are,

they'll NEVER agree to it!!! http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee57/Fyrenza/Forum%20Stuff/rofl-smilie_zpsbe9cabeb.gif (http://s235.photobucket.com/user/Fyrenza/media/Forum%20Stuff/rofl-smilie_zpsbe9cabeb.gif.html)