To be fair, if we think about the bigger picture and not just abortion, unless US States disappear then people's rights will continue to vary quite a bit depending on their geographical location in the same country, including their body autonomy...
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
1231 points (99.1% liked)
Political Memes
5510 readers
1372 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
States rights have always been about allowing one group of people to have the power to oppress another group within a state and without federal intervention. It’s why Democrats tend to focus on federal policy and Republicans are obsessed with things like states or parental rights.
Picking up your point, I believe that reform should extend to the point of dissolving states and creating provinces instead, all under central government like nearly every country on earth.
Look at Canada, provinces don't solve that issue either
It's helpful to have a sort of pyramid in government for the sake of balancing the workload (someone managing foreign policy shouldn't be bothered to give a shit about a pothole in Utah) but what we could do is not burden states with these kinds of things and kick it up to the federal level. For a while it was, and it was stable and consistent, but now it's not and that's the mess
So long as States are allowed to provide more than the Federal minimum you're still opening the door to having people with different rights based on their geographical location though...
Let's say healthcare is now 100% public and managed or forced on States by the federal government but medication isn't covered, you could have one State saying "alright, that's dumb, we will handle medication coverage then" and now living right across the State border means that you're paying for insulin or private coverage while your friend in the next town over doesn't know how much either of those things cost because it's all paid by taxes...
I'm using that example because something similar happened in Canada (one province decided to create its own medication insurance policy while it was an handled by the private sector in the other provinces).u
load more comments
(4 replies)
"Facts are gay." - some Republican.
The sad truth is that for nearly half of American, Vance's statement would resonate with them.
I believe we need to abolish the presidency in the near future and distribute the powers to the House and Senate. Powers of government to the House and Powers of State to the Senate, with some fudging for checks and balances, like house passes laws and Senate has to intervene to veto them with some qualified majority rules like the EU has.
I believe this has to be done because it's pretty clear that a system with a single powerful leader inherently puts all the strain and division of the nation into that leader, especially when there's no recourse when public sentiment turns against that leader except for voting them out, if that's even an option to begin with.
A dual-parliamentary system with some restructuring of the House and Senate would go a LONG way in venting a significant amount of the pressure that has built up under our elected leaders as of late.
Also replace the singular supreme court with a sortitionate bench that's drawn randomly for each case that rises to federal jurisdiction to shoot jurisdiction shopping dead.
But who would lead the executive branch then and how would you ensure that they are reasonably separated from the legislative branch?
I would suggest that abolishing it is impractical, however it needs to be reigned in a lot. There are a few circumstances that call for the decisiveness of a strong singular authority, but not many. These "executive orders" have been nuts and shouldn't be such a routine thing.
There would be no independent executive branch, the very concept inevitably endangers democratic systems by creating a person with a lot of power who inherently is going to view any disagreement of course of action from the people's representatives as an obstacle to be gotten around.
Or have you missed all the headlines about the over reliance reliance on executive orders over the past decade and change? Not to mention how the fiat veto was never intended but instead the result of Andrew Jackson just deciding he didn't have to give congress a reason why their laws were being treated with the same energy as shit that was at a minimum arguably unconstitutional up to that point.
The independent executive is a leach that parasitically sucks power away from the elected representatives of the people, and imposes "checks" on their powers that not only are entirely unneeded, but actively endanger the health of the republic.
Everywhere that's tried american style democracy since the US formed has collapsed in dramatic fashion, everywhere else that's gone with a parliamentary system has at worst had periods of endangerment, mostly caused by a parliamentary leader trying to get the powers of an american style president, gestures wildly at Orban and Erdogan
The executive isn't supposed to be wielding power unilaterally. What the president does now, with executive orders and signing statements and line-item veto, is massive overreach.
In a properly functioning democracy, the president delegates authority over most everything to trusted advisors (i.e. head of FCC, or DEA, or what have you) who are placed in that position because they have demonstrated both great political/leadership skills, and appropriate knowledge of the area they are governing. The president still has the final say-so in the form of veto power, but that's pretty much it.
Yeah, and that's not needed when the senate can perform that role just as well and also be a more functioning version of itself for it.
There is no need for a singular focalpoint of elected power.
Might as well start from scratch at that point.