BF2S Forums Civil War Fall Out: National Identity versus State/Local Identity

eleven bravo wrote:

it would be more than a bit.  california alone supplies much of the country and the world with food.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-05-28 12:25:41)

Mekstizzle wrote:

at the end of the day your states don't have any real history, there's no reason why two entities like for example New York and New Jersey exist apart from being there for the sake of it, I know this is me being ignorant, but hear me out. When you compare it to another federation like India or Russia where the individual states all have unique linguistic/ethnic groups which define the state from another, whereas in the US it's all rather artificial and done for the sake of governing the land mass easily.

If you get what I mean. The US is a young country, relatively speaking. Ethnically and linguistically homogeneous in terms of states and such. There wasn't really much of a reason outside of convenience for having so many states, surely.







canada too


Well actually, not Canada. Quebec exists because of the Frenchies, that's an example of a state within a country making sense.

Just look at the map of the US states, practically squares because they just wanted to divide the land for the sake of it.

rdx-fx wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

it would be more than a bit.  california alone supplies much of the country and the world with food.

We've had this discussion before, a couple years ago as I recall.

Fine.  We'll sell off urban wasteland southern California, and keep the productive northern California.

Just call it Southern Oregon, as was suggested above.

And, from a bit of quick google-fu, it's estimated that California is just 13% of US GDP.  I could live with that loss, if it meant the rest of the country was self-sufficient.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

at the end of the day your states don't have any real history, there's no reason why two entities like for example New York and New Jersey exist apart from being there for the sake of it, I know this is me being ignorant, but hear me out. When you compare it to another federation like India or Russia where the individual states all have unique linguistic/ethnic groups which define the state from another, whereas in the US it's all rather artificial and done for the sake of governing the land mass easily.

If you get what I mean. The US is a young country, relatively speaking. Ethnically and linguistically homogeneous in terms of states and such. There wasn't really much of a reason outside of convenience for having so many states, surely.







canada too


Well actually, not Canada. Quebec exists because of the Frenchies, that's an example of a state within a country making sense.

Just look at the map of the US states, practically squares because they just wanted to divide the land for the sake of it.

That's sillily superficial. While the differences may appear small to an outsider, there are cultural differences between the states. New Yorkers dislike people from New Jersey, we consider them to be second class and dirty Then there are regional accents and dialects. What you see on TV is 'generic American accent' that many actors have to train to master in speech schools. There's no mistaking someone from New York City compared to someone from Texas or someone from California. We have different mannerisms, different accents, different attitudes.

We're not homogenous at all in reality. I bet if Diesel had made a third option which let people identify with a section of the country rather than an individual state, it would've been the winning choice. Midwesterners identify themselves as Midwesterners, Southerners as Southerners, etc.

SenorToenails wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Yes, but what about the feds using backdoor methods of pushing crap through, like the minimum drinking age?  Or why are the Feds so worried about abortion?  Medical marijuana?  Gay marriage?

all these things have an effect on interstate commerce, so, according the constitution and rulings by the supreme court, the feds have the right to regulate.

If you look at anything right it could be considered interstate commerce then.  Take the drinking age--how is a bar or liquor store (which can only sell to people in this state) engaging in interstate trade?  If California allows medical marijuana, and all its growing operations occur within that state, how is it interstate?  Same with abortion...how is that interstate?  Strictly speaking, the feds stepping into these issues is contrived at best and at worst it's stomping on state sovereignty.

eleven bravo wrote:

you are correct and that has been the reasoning.


take the your example of a bar.  the way the civil rights act of 1964 was justified was when restaurants didnt wanna serve black people, its a violation of the rights afforded by congress to regulate interstate commerce in that A) the location of the establishment or its advertisement in the vicinity of the interstate high way system and subsequent traffic and B) supplies and ingredients and what not would more than likely be ordered from a number of different sources, out of state being one of them.

JohnG@lt wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Secession from New York State, not the country Albany is a cesspool.

Take the city with you!!!

No way. Bloomberg would try to crown himself Emperor for life a la Napoleon

eleven bravo wrote:

im taking a course in federalism this quarter.  shit is fresh in my mind.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-05-28 12:42:23)

Diesel_dyk wrote:

With the recent talk of red state blue state, Texas secession, rising up, states rights, true/real American versus unAmerican I thought it a current and interesting topic.

eleven bravo wrote:

yes, thats the point.  its constitutionally sound.  ever since the begining. nothing has changed.  i think your idea of what you want this country to be conflicts with what it has been from the inception.

Macbeth wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

excuse me but what the fuck are you talking about?

I think he's referring to how Lincoln changed us from being a voluntary union to being a mandatory one.

Before the Civil War, states could secede much easier than they can now.  This process wasn't really tested until the formation of the Confederacy.  The aftermath of the Civil War resulted in strenghtening what bound states together to form our union.  Technically, a state can still file for secession now, but it requires the approval of the majority of the rest of the union.

But we are still a republic. We can still choose our leaders. If she said Federalism ended with Lincoln then she would have a leg to stand on, but since she doesn't even know the terms she uses or needs how the hell am I supposed to take anything she says seriously?!

eleven bravo wrote:

the supreme courts decision in Martin V. Hunter's Lessee in 1816 stated the fact that state governments rights, policies and laws, when conflicting with laws and treaties passed by the federal goverment, are not valid. 

Gibbons v Ogden 1824 established limitiations in what one state can charge and charter for use of its water way when those waters are shared by other states. 

Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v United States in 1914 kept the state of texas from charging lousianna unreasonable fares for using its rail ways in order to bolster in own in state rail service economy.  it confirmed the establishment of universal rates.  it was reasoned, along with the others that congress is given the authority to make direct laws or vest its power in the executive branch to regulate.