States rights and solutions

[JohnnyLingo]

The more I read and hear about the many debates that are constantly ongoing in the U.S., the more I wonder if a states rights fix wouldn't work.

Want abortion in California? Great! Don't want it in Utah? Okay!

Want to be able to own a grenade launcher in Texas? Sure thing, buddy. Prefer to see all weapons, ever, outlawed in Massachussetts? You can do that, too.

Prefer that your state take your tax money to cover everyone with health insurance? No problem, move to Vermont! Decide you'd rather not support those lazy bums? Go to Idaho!

Is this feasible?

[KillerDog]

Not anymore. Thank you Abraham Lincoln.

[JohnnyLingo]

Not anymore. Thank you Abraham Lincoln.

Really? As in it will never, ever be a possibility? We already kind of do that, with New York's gun laws and California's take on medical marijuana.

[creekster]

Really? As in it will never, ever be a possibility? We already kind of do that, with New York's gun laws and California's take on medical marijuana.

It might take a few minutes for him to answer you, what with his tongue planted in his cheek like that.

[Indy Coug]

K-dog isn't kidding. He's got a real problem with Abraham Lincoln.

[KillerDog]

Definitely not TIC. Lincoln's presidency was as great of a jump in federal powers as the change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. If you want to blame someone for goverment regulation of business, look to FDR. If you believe states rights are trampled on and want someone to blame, Lincoln is your guy.

BTW, I don't have a problem with Lincoln, I just dislike the deification of Lincoln by people who deride the outcome of his efforts. He changed the country, for good or ill, from a collection of independent states into a single state (under the traditional meaning of the term) divided into quasi-independent sub-units.

[PaloAltoCougar]

He changed the country, for good or ill, from a collection of independent states into a single state (under the traditional meaning of the term) divided into quasi-independent sub-units.

This reminds me of a Carl Sandburg line, something like: "The U.S. Civil War was fought over a verb, whether it should be 'The United States is,' or 'The United States are....'"

[creekster]

Definitely not TIC. Lincoln's presidency was as great of a jump in federal powers as the change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. If you want to blame someone for goverment regulation of business, look to FDR. If you believe states rights are trampled on and want someone to blame, Lincoln is your guy.

BTW, I don't have a problem with Lincoln, I just dislike the deification of Lincoln by people who deride the outcome of his efforts. He changed the country, for good or ill, from a collection of independent states into a single state (under the traditional meaning of the term) divided into quasi-independent sub-units.

Interesting. My original thought when I read the first post was to suggest that while we we're at it, heck, let's let some states have slaves and some oppose slavery, which is sort of what I thought you were getting at. I think it is a little hard to blame Lincoln for what happened however, given that the expansion of federal authority resulted as much from post war anger and legislation and constitutional amendments (not to mention what has happened in the 150 years since), when Lincoln was cold and in the ground, as it did from what Lincoln himself did. OTOH, while I wouldn't deify Lincoln, I do respect him greatly and do not deride the results of his efforts. We are better for it, IMO.