Comments on: Laboratories of Democracy: The State of the States

By: Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:49:39 +0000

Your listener Kirk Patrick asked if there were ways short of secession that States could oppose federal action, which lead to an interesting discussion of nullification. No mention was made of interposition, however. Neither of these remedies is viable, Jefferson and Madison’s machinations to the contrary notwithstanding. Andrew Jackson started to pound a stake into these doctrines, which the silver bullet of the Civil War eventually killed.

One State in particular DOES have a remedy other than nullification and interposition although not the one its current Governor proposes. Texas has the absolute right — not to secede — but to split itself into five states which would give it eight more US Senators, at least six of whom would probably be relatively unsympathetic to federal power (at least as exercised by our current administration). See Let’s Mess with Texas, 82 Tex. L. Rev. 1587 (May 2004).

There is one other remedy, which is difficult, but constitutional. Under Article V, the Legislatures of 2/3ds of the States can request a constitutional convention, which Congress is then obligated to call.

By: Tony (BackStory Producer)

Tony (BackStory Producer) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:06:43 +0000

Quick — can you hum the tune of YOUR state song? No Wiki-peeking allowed.

Few of us can, which probably goes a long way towards explaining why Maryland has made it into the 21st-century with an official song that was already out-of-date by the middle of the 19th-century. Now, Old Line Staters are finally sitting up and taking notice, thanks to a bunch of fourth graders there. One of our favorite history bloggers (and fellow Charlottesvillain), Kevin Levin, recently drew attention to the ensuing brouhaha:
http://cwmemory.com/2009/02/24/politically-correct-fourth-graders/

Another favorite, Larry Cebula, has followed suit with some splendid state song trivia from the other side of the continent:
http://northwesthistory.blogspot.com/2009/02/sad-story-of-washington-state-song.html

And as long as we’re rooting around in the statehouse dustbin, can anybody explain to me once and for all how Oregon got its name?

By: John Ragosta

John Ragosta — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:20:09 +0000

The Civil War, and post-Civil War amendments, evidenced a fundamental shift in the constitutional structure and power, leaving states’ authority largely, although not wholly, within the discretion of the federal power. (What I find most odd is that this view is most vehemently opposed by the same people who insist that the War was about states’ rights: If it was about states’ rights and the South lost, what does that tell you?) Setting aside administrative convenience and tradition, and a federal interest in encouraging experimentation in some areas, there is a persuasive legal argument that the states are largely irrelevant (Supreme Court decisions to the contrary are still very narrow). Isn’t the real issue, though, social? Why do we continue to see ourselves as Virginians, for example, as different from other citizens? Or is the premise wrong and our identity really mostly regional? And is even that regional/state identity rapidly eroding?

By the way, the corporate elite have become increasingly powerful, but I don’t know that increasing state power would tend to limit them. Start by reforming tax policy, and if you really wanted to make a dent, end the practice of treating corporations as “persons” for determination of legal rights. That, though, would be truly revolutionary.

By: Robert Whealey

Robert Whealey — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:54:22 +0000

When I was 18 in 1948, Senators ,by an large,still represented their state interests, Mich. for autos, Wis. for dairy products. Since then every year corporatations and international banks have bought more and more elections. Democracy is only a thin shell of what existerd in 1948. The voters have lost faith in Congress. The power elite have become more and more rich and the working and middle classes have seen their popwer shirk.

By: Nan M. DiBello

Nan M. DiBello — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:46:10 +0000

I disagree with the notion that “power has steadily shifted to the federal government”. I find it helpful to recall that we have, not a unitary system of government, but a federal system of states and a national government (with the US Congress enjoying legislative supremacy — even if the members of Congress chose not to exercise that power). A strong case can be made that the power of the national government has increased without the power of the states diminishing. Several things contribute to the expansion of national government, among them, a) the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the states in numerous cases; b) the historical division of spheres of influence (e.g., education within state purview and foreign policy at the national level) has persisted since the founding, c) there are political reasons for the states to defer to the national government, especially when it permits the states to keep taxes down. Just because there is more power at the national level doesn’t mean there is less power among the states, espcially when viewed from the perspective of citizens.
Although we are all Americans, it continues to matter where we live. For example, I live in New York State and work and dine in smoke-free environments, but, when I travel to some states, I am startled to find that people smoke in public places! More importantly, Americans do no enjoy the same investment in education, the environment, employment opportunities, or access to medical because there are significant policy difference among the states. In short, the federal system is a dynamic system with power increasing and even shifting and, since the Civil War, we have much more government — state and national — overall.