blackaeronaut Wrote:I dunno. I rather like the option of being able to go to a place where things are run a little more to my liking. You have to remember that the laws of a State are as much part of the regional culture.Sure, but without qualification, you could say any nation-state fills the same criteria.
The US notion of state's rights, historically, lies in the fact that when these rights were drawn up, states had to have some autonomy due to the technological level of the time meaning that the federal government could not quickly render any sort of decision or even communicate on a timely basis with the state. This obviously became a near-obsolete concept with the completion of country-wide telegraph and rail systems. The federal government could now (at least on a technological level) learn about and respond more swiftly to any event in Alaska than a Founding Father could get home from dinner.
This isn't to say I don't think states should have any rights, because some things are simply better handled on the "ground level" with an understanding of local conditions that central authorities don't possess. The mushy middle between obviously federal responsibilities (national defence, foreign policy) and obviously municipal/local responsibilities (fire services, urban planning) where states should have supremacy is up for debate, though. For instance, while I am of course in favour of the decision by several states to legalise homosexual marriage, I think the rationale for states having that power is hard to follow and leads to strange legal results (as in the couple attempting to get a divorce in Texas, where their marriage is not recognised as legal), and that it and things like it contribute to the alienation of various parts of the United States from each other. I'd also argue that school systems should be under the jurisdiction of the federal government, not municipal/state (as in the US) or provincial (as in Canada).