Federal vs Unitary Government

[LiberalMedia]

The description for the Politics board reads: "Discuss government policies and candidates..." I wish to discuss the U.S. government's previous policy of federalism, and how that contrasts with the system we are currently transitioning into.

We're likely all familiar with federalism; grassroots, locally-based government that draws its power from the bottom-up rather than dictating from the top-down, political subdivisions free to differ in laws and encouraged to compete for jobs, residents, etc.--really sick, twisted stuff. I think, however, that less is known about the incoming unitary system of government.

Unitary state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A unitary country is a country governed as one single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme and any administrative divisions (subnational units) exercise only powers that their central government chooses to delegate. The great majority of states in the world have a unitary system of government.

In a unitary country, subnational units are created and abolished, and their powers may be broadened and narrowed, by the central government. Although political power in unitary countries may be delegated through devolution to local government by statute, the central government remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers.

In federal countries, by contrast, states or other subnational units share sovereignty with the central government, and the states constituting the federation have an existence and power functions that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government. In some cases, it is the federal government that has only those powers expressly delegated to it.

(Note: Wikipedia calls them unitary states rather than unitary countries; to prevent confusion over which sense of the word "state" they were using, I have slightly edited this excerpt for clarity. Feel free to view the full article at the link provided.)

 

[LiberalMedia]

Why do I bring this up? Because we're barreling towards a more bluntly unitary system too quickly, and butthurt conservatards who don't know anything are bound to complain. An example of our unitary government in action:

Federal judge strikes down NC s same-sex marriage ban WRAL.com

Nearly two years after North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage only as a union between a man and a woman, a federal court judge in Charlotte on Friday overturned the ban, allowing gay and lesbian couples across the state to marry immediately.

U.S. District Court Judge Max Cogburn's ruling came five days after the nation's top court declined to hear any appeal of a July ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond striking down Virginia's ban. That court has jurisdiction over North Carolina.

The Tar Heel state became the 27th in the country where same-sex marriage is now legal. The U.S. Supreme Court, also Friday cleared the way in Idaho, making it the 28th.

The constitutional amendment referenced here reads as follows:

North Carolina Amendment 1 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

Cogburn's ruling overturning the state constitution is a significant one. Unlike Jim Crow laws, which blatantly, unrepentantly, and actively discriminated against a specific segment of the population, North Carolina's Amendment 1 (AKA the "Marriage Amendment") was merely a legal definition. Nevertheless, it was ruled unconstitutional by in federal District Court.

 

[LiberalMedia]

This is a landmark ruling, not just for marriage equality, but for the furthering of the unitary system of government over the pre-existing federalist system. The central government in the U.S. overruling state or local laws has a long-standing precedent, and state constitutions have also been overruled. However, never before in U.S. history has a state's definition, for legal purposes, of a word been overruled. Regardless of whether or not the marriage of Homosexual-Americans is legal in a state, the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for the recognition of out-of-state marriages in Article IV, Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Keep in mind, this is the same clause that allows someone with a Maryland driver's license to go on a cross-country road trip to California and back without getting stopped at every state boundary for driving without a license. Even though requirements for whom is eligible to get a license, what one must do in order to get a license, etc. differ from state to state, licenses from any state are automatically recognized as valid by every other state.

And so, with today's ruling on the Constitution of North Carolina, we have crossed a threshold that we will not easily be forced back through: The national government's most irreproachable branch--the only one where the policymakers are not subject to petty things like elections--has begun exercising its power to nullify state legal definitions on issues state governments have control over. To quote former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Alan Keyes:

Human beings reason by means of concepts and definitions. We also make laws by means of definitions--and if you don't know how to operate with respect for those definitions, you can't make the law.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Last year, in 2013, the federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) was struck down. It established essentially the same definition of marriage as North Carolina's Marriage Amendment, but on a federal level; it did not impact anything at the state or local level, being purposefully restricted in its application to federal laws and policies. It also expressly allowed states to violate Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and deny full faith and credit to the marriage licenses granted by other states--in essence, allowing states the right to not only write their own legal definitions, but to enforce them within their borders to the exclusion of the legal definitions of passers-by and passers-through.

With the judicial repeal of the central government's definition of marriage and now the overturning of state definitions of marriage, the branch of our central government least accountable to the people has, in effect, decided that it and it alone stands as the arbiter of how any legal terminology can be defined.

 

[LiberalMedia]

And that, my fellow lybyryls, is a beautiful thing. With such power out of the hands of bigoted Wrongpublican snake oil salesmanpigs, we can rest easy knowing that our cyvyl ryghts will protected and upheld by prygryssyve courts whose judges carry de facto immunity from removal from office against their will.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS has been the decider for a long, long tyme.

 

[DriftingSand]

"We're likely all familiar with federalism; grassroots, locally-based government that draws its power from the bottom-up rather than dictating from the top-down, political subdivisions free to differ in laws and encouraged to compete for jobs, residents, etc.--really sick, twisted stuff."

In what way is local government "twisted stuff?" The most local form of government starts in the individual, family household. One family may regularly eat dinner at 6:00PM while the neighbor's family eats at 7:00PM. Some may regulate how much TV their kids watch or what time everyone goes to bed. Why would you consider different standards or bylaws to be "sick and twisted?" By the same token, what difference does it make if one town has a set of rules that governs its citizens differently than the next town over?

Why is a central government that dictates to and entire nation better than self-governance at the local level?

 

[LiberalMedia]

The most local form of government starts in the individual, family household. One family may regularly eat dinner at 6:00PM while the neighbor's family eats at 7:00PM. Some may regulate how much TV their kids watch or what time everyone goes to bed.

Absolutely disgusting.

By the same token, what difference does it make if one town has a set of rules that governs its citizens differently than the next town over?

Why is a central government that dictates to and entire nation better than self-governance at the local level?

Everyone needs to live by the same laws. That's the only way we can ensure that everyone is treated equally under the law. If your libertardian wet dream of devolution and Sovereign Citizenship come true, the law will be different for every individual, making it literally impossible to hold everyone to the same standard because the standards everyone sets will be their own.

 

[LiberalMedia]

SCOTUS has been the decided for a long, long tyme.

The whole reason we have (or really, had) 50 different sets of marriage laws on the books nationally was because the SCOTUS refused to be the ultimate decider on that issue. Even now they're declining to hear many of these cases, which is why a lowly federal district court judge overturned the North Carolina Constitution rather than the Supreme Court.

Instead, what we're looking at is a broad network of faceless appointees who rewrite state laws and constitutions, make policy that is beyond reproach by the public (which doesn't elect them), and issue decisions that are upheld due to stare decisis by their fellow arbiters of truth and goodness.

I, for one, welcome this exceedingly progressive development with open arms.

 

[Kosh]

The description for the Politics board reads: "Discuss government policies and candidates..." I wish to discuss the U.S. government's previous policy of federalism, and how that contrasts with the system we are currently transitioning into.

We're likely all familiar with federalism; grassroots, locally-based government that draws its power from the bottom-up rather than dictating from the top-down, political subdivisions free to differ in laws and encouraged to compete for jobs, residents, etc.--really sick, twisted stuff. I think, however, that less is known about the incoming unitary system of government.

Unitary state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A unitary country is a country governed as one single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme and any administrative divisions (subnational units) exercise only powers that their central government chooses to delegate. The great majority of states in the world have a unitary system of government.

In a unitary country, subnational units are created and abolished, and their powers may be broadened and narrowed, by the central government. Although political power in unitary countries may be delegated through devolution to local government by statute, the central government remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers.

In federal countries, by contrast, states or other subnational units share sovereignty with the central government, and the states constituting the federation have an existence and power functions that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government. In some cases, it is the federal government that has only those powers expressly delegated to it.

(Note: Wikipedia calls them unitary states rather than unitary countries; to prevent confusion over which sense of the word "state" they were using, I have slightly edited this excerpt for clarity. Feel free to view the full article at the link provided.)

Once again the far left shows they do not understand anything that they post, just has to follow their marching orders like the good little drones they are.

Note: The OP is a far left Obama drone..

 

[Kosh]

SCOTUS has been the decided for a long, long tyme.

The whole reason we have (or really, had) 50 different sets of marriage laws on the books nationally was because the SCOTUS refused to be the ultimate decider on that issue. Even now they're declining to hear many of these cases, which is why a lowly federal district court judge overturned the North Carolina Constitution rather than the Supreme Court.

Instead, what we're looking at is a broad network of faceless appointees who rewrite state laws and constitutions, make policy that is beyond reproach by the public (which doesn't elect them), and issue decisions that are upheld due to stare decisis by their fellow arbiters of truth and goodness.

I, for one, welcome this exceedingly progressive development with open arms.

Next the far left will be posting that driving is a "right"..

Then again the far left wants the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench.

 

[LiberalMedia]

The description for the Politics board reads: "Discuss government policies and candidates..." I wish to discuss the U.S. government's previous policy of federalism, and how that contrasts with the system we are currently transitioning into.

We're likely all familiar with federalism; grassroots, locally-based government that draws its power from the bottom-up rather than dictating from the top-down, political subdivisions free to differ in laws and encouraged to compete for jobs, residents, etc.--really sick, twisted stuff. I think, however, that less is known about the incoming unitary system of government.

Unitary state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A unitary country is a country governed as one single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme and any administrative divisions (subnational units) exercise only powers that their central government chooses to delegate. The great majority of states in the world have a unitary system of government.

In a unitary country, subnational units are created and abolished, and their powers may be broadened and narrowed, by the central government. Although political power in unitary countries may be delegated through devolution to local government by statute, the central government remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers.

In federal countries, by contrast, states or other subnational units share sovereignty with the central government, and the states constituting the federation have an existence and power functions that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government. In some cases, it is the federal government that has only those powers expressly delegated to it.

(Note: Wikipedia calls them unitary states rather than unitary countries; to prevent confusion over which sense of the word "state" they were using, I have slightly edited this excerpt for clarity. Feel free to view the full article at the link provided.)

Once again the far left shows they do not understand anything that they post, just has to follow their marching orders like the good little drones they are.

Note: The OP is a far left Obama drone..

Either prove your angsty little comments by demonstrating what I was wrong with what I posted, or stop whining about how I just demolished your bigoted little worldview.

 

[Kosh]

The description for the Politics board reads: "Discuss government policies and candidates..." I wish to discuss the U.S. government's previous policy of federalism, and how that contrasts with the system we are currently transitioning into.

We're likely all familiar with federalism; grassroots, locally-based government that draws its power from the bottom-up rather than dictating from the top-down, political subdivisions free to differ in laws and encouraged to compete for jobs, residents, etc.--really sick, twisted stuff. I think, however, that less is known about the incoming unitary system of government.

Unitary state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A unitary country is a country governed as one single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme and any administrative divisions (subnational units) exercise only powers that their central government chooses to delegate. The great majority of states in the world have a unitary system of government.

In a unitary country, subnational units are created and abolished, and their powers may be broadened and narrowed, by the central government. Although political power in unitary countries may be delegated through devolution to local government by statute, the central government remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers.

In federal countries, by contrast, states or other subnational units share sovereignty with the central government, and the states constituting the federation have an existence and power functions that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government. In some cases, it is the federal government that has only those powers expressly delegated to it.

(Note: Wikipedia calls them unitary states rather than unitary countries; to prevent confusion over which sense of the word "state" they were using, I have slightly edited this excerpt for clarity. Feel free to view the full article at the link provided.)

Once again the far left shows they do not understand anything that they post, just has to follow their marching orders like the good little drones they are.

Note: The OP is a far left Obama drone..

Either prove your angsty little comments by demonstrating what I was wrong with what I posted, or stop whining about how I just demolished your bigoted little worldview.

Once again the far left posts bunk and them expects others to prove them wrong!

Classic far left tactic.

Then again since you are far left drone, you want the government to control every aspect of your life, so what is that called?

 

[Obamanation]

Wow - liberalmedia is one screwed up individual. Giving communism a new name doesn't make it something other than communism!

 

[LiberalMedia]

Next the far left will be posting that driving is a "right"..

Do you believe that it isn't? If not, why not?

Then again the far left wants the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench.

So did a sizeable portion of the nation's founders, yet I don't see you going around demonizing them. Why is that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far right mutants are called out to give evidence, and all they can do is whine: par for the course.

 

[Obamanation]

Nobody is whining. The scope of the federal gov't was ALWAYS intended to be limited.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Once again the far left posts bunk and them expects others to prove them wrong!

Classic far left tactic.

I expect you to back up your kneejerk accusations. Your first response to this thread was "durr ur rong," and when asked what exactly was wrong, you whip out "hurrr i dun hafta tel u nuffins" as if it's an actual argument.

I suppose it was wrong of me to actually expect an anti-freedom right-wing nutjob to engage in meaningful discourse rather than merely slinging mud all over my pristine dissertation on forms of governmental hierarchies. *Sigh...*

 

[LiberalMedia]

Wow - liberalmedia is one screwed up individual. Giving communism a new name doesn't make it something other than communism!

You spelled "communism" with a lowercase letter. That indicates that you are referring to the economic system, and not the mixed eco-socio-political ideology promoted in various forms by Marx, Lenin, et al.

So I must ask, exactly where did anyone but you bring the economy into this? Was it your intent to refer not to an economic system but rather to authoritarian, totalitarian, tyrannical, and/or dictatorial governments?

 

[LiberalMedia]

Nobody is whining. The scope of the federal gov't was ALWAYS intended to be limited.

Nope. Even from its inception as an idea rather than a reality, the "federal" government (remember--this thread is all about pointing out that American federalism is being replaced by a unitary system, so it makes little sense to refer to the national/central government as "federal" any longer) was being pulled in two separate directions. One group wanted a strong central government, and the other wanted a loose confederation held together by a weak system of national-level delegates. We tried it the confederates' way, and that system collapsed. We unitarians (not to be confused with the religion--I'm an out atheist) have been working constantly since the initial adoption of the U.S. Constitution to bring about our preferred form of government, and now it's just about here, because for the first time, we are the majority. We're winning. We no longer have to slink around in shadows and secrecy--we can declare our intentions and have little opposition, if any at all.