Citizens of the USA, would you prefer to have the same laws nationwide or are you happy that each state can have slightly different laws?

That would depend upon which law, in some states there are laws that I think should be changed. But getting each state to agree on a nation wide law is like pulling teeth. As you mentioned some states have strong feelings with/against gay marriage. It would be nice for each state to withhold the same laws but logically it’s very difficult to impose certain nationwide laws, especially on some controversial topics.

Well, it does allow change to occur in a slow ripple effect, i.e. gay marriage, rather than having to get all the conservative areas of the country to agree in order for there to be change. (And I suppose the inverse is true too.)

It’s the whole point of our Constitution and form of government. I refer you to the Federalist Papers.

I like it the way it is.

I’d prefer power to be at the state level.
I don’t see sense in setting laws for 300 million people at once (Unless it’s regarding rights for groups, such as the right for homosexuals to marry).
Hell, even in California we have over 30 million people. That’s an insane amount of people to affect with a law.

I’d honestly prefer to see laws be set as locally as possible. But having county/city-based laws certainly make for a lot of confusion for people who cross city/county lines regularly.

I like it! every states like a different country they are all so different- I like how they can all choose and vote their own laws-except stuff like gay marriage which is a civil right and should be at a federal level, so everybody can marry who they want, just like everybody can say what they want and have whatever religion they want

I like it the way it is. It gives you yet more reasons to choose to live in one state over another.

Texas has no state income tax! Yay!

Different laws to give diversity.

Nevada just wouldn’t be the same without individual state laws: no state income tax, age of consent of 16, legal prostitution in some counties, and legal gambling. It’s one hell of a place. :)

I prefer it the way it is, to be honest. Hence why I go to Oregon to buy big expensive things.

Study your history: there was an entire war fought over this very question, 1861 – 1865.

And that ain’t all.

@PapaLeo I’m not asking the citizens of 1861 – 1865. I’m asking the citizens of 2009.

@RareDenver – Some Southerners are still fighting that war, you know. That’s why so many pickup trucks have Confederate flags in the back window.

I like it the way it is. And ignorance is no excuse when it comes to visiting a different state. I live quite close to New Jersey and they have plenty of different laws when it comes to driving, much stricter actually. I follow them as anybody should.

Some states have laws that I really don’t agree with. If every law was made at a national level, we might all get stuck with some real crap.

Tell that to Pelosi, she removed the amendment from the healthcare bill that would have let individual states make their own single-payer plans.

Definitely prefer power at the state level. I couldn’t tell you how many times some of Oregon’s laws have been overturned, despite the fact that Oregonians keep voting them back in. It pisses me off, unbelievably, when people who don’t even live here or vote, try to dictate what the majority of a specific population wants.

We just opened up the first medical marijuana cafe – we’ll see how long that lasts before outsiders try to ban it.

I almost wish we had a real, true progressive leader in the White House, coupled with an even more progressive legislative branch. Take away state laws, and enforce only the federal.

Almost, as even I can see my radical, ridiculously flawed argument.

The system is what it is.

I like the fact states can be independent laboratories for social policy.
Idealistically, i’d be nice to have a wise, progressive federal government that made sure states maintained certain levels of liberty. But since this is impossible, it’s good that states like California can do their own thing without the southern and midwest states ruining everything.

It is good that here in California we aren’t stuck in homophobic ways that the South has, and we’ve allowed gay marriage. .. oh wait :(

@Grisaille kind of said what I would say. I can see the argument for states to have significant power, but there are so many f&$ked up states. They pass laws that go against our federal laws and we have to wait for them to be challenged up to the supreme court to knock them down. In the mean time that state gets away with not following the constitution or current federal law.

Regarding education I want minimum federal standards so every child has the same opportunity that is available in our country. I don’t want a kid in Alabama to not be able to compete with a child in Oregon for college or jobs (states where randomly chosen).

I do like the idea that states can try things, and then if it works in a state we can spread it across the country, but I think we could do this even if the central government was strong.

I am an American before I am a Washingtonian or a Floridian. I hate moving to a new state and feeling like I am in another country. @Kraigmo touched on what I mean by this. Every time I live in the south I think WTF?! Is this America?

I guess what I really want is a strong federal government if they are progressive and agree with me on gay marriage, choice, euthanasia; otherwise being able to at least find a state that is progressive is better than nothing.

Why does breaking away from the Union have to be illegal, goddamn it?

Can’t we form a new, ridiculously progressive country and invite every like-minded, tolerant and liberal soul in? To hell with you, homophobic, racist and ethnocentric fuckers.

I say we go claim some land on the Moon, or something. Or move to Canada. I’m sure they like us enough to give us a piece of land in exchange for not being a war-mongering, idiotic group of chauvinist dicks. Please?

@Grisaille Sometimes I play with the idea that it is too bad the South doesn’t want to secede. If they did, I think we should let them go this time, just let me out before it all goes down.

I’d love to see Mexico take them over.

Love.

@Grisaille Now why do you want to wish that on Mexico? Lol.

@RareDenver I’m aware that you’re asking us, and that’s what I find odd. This is a question with a deep historical, sociological, political and economic background. And you’re treating it like a “boxers or briefs” question.

@PapaLeo I’m only asking the question here, people a free to give their views on the whole array of possible systems they would like to see in place and why. If you want to answer the question taking into account the deep historical, sociological, political and economic background, please do.

I like it the way it is, but it’s a double edged sword. I’m an avid shooter and gun collector, so I’m glad I can choose to live in states with lax gun laws where I can exercise my right/hobby freely. However, I am also very pro gay rights and pro-choice, and gun friendly states tend to not be so much, so I’m left having to make compromises.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Most liberals I know, including here on Fluther, are for the right to bear arms. You might be better off in a blue state and not realize it.

Maybe so, @JLeslie, but that doesn’t change the fact that most blue states have craptacular gun laws compared to where I’m at. It’s not the pro-gun liberals that are the problem, it’s the state legislatures.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I am not a “gun person” so I am not very familiar with the laws. Do you mean there are limits to how many guns a person can have in some states? Everyone I know just wants to make it a little tougher to acquire a gun or gun permit, to try to weed out the people who might be unsafe. Would you be against having to wait a few days for a background check? Is that what you are referring to by craptacular laws?

@JLeslie, I live in Tennessee where I can go to a gun shop, plop my cash on the counter, fill out BATFE Form 4473, the seller makes a quick call to the police for a background check, and ten minutes later, I’m out the door with my new gun. By craptacular laws, I’m referring to laws like in California that are arbitrary at best. Take the California assault weapons ban, which restricts things like bayonet lugs and folding stocks. Does anyone really think that is going to have any negligible effect on crime? So called “assault weapons” are only used in something like *.*15% of all gun crime, last I checked, and most of the laws regulating them are based on the fact that these types of weapons are cosmetically very “scary” looking. Here in Tennessee, I can have all the guns I want with bayonets, barrel shrouds, folding stocks, 30 round magazines, etc., and ironically, my state’s gun crime is significantly lower than California, New York, and other states with highly restrictive laws. Why do you think that is?

I like to think of myself as a Progressive who happens to think that weapons can be beneficial, and I find it odd that most other Progressives, liberals, etc. are so quick to call for the restriction of guns to regular folks when I believe the socio-economic factors behind gun crime are what should be more effectively addressed, but that’s beside the point.

Pshew, I get a tad ranty when talking about this sort of thing. Do ya catch my drift? :-)

Well, I live 5 minutes outside of Memphis metro area, and we have some of the highest gun violence rates in the country. But on another thread someone was explaining to me that there are not great correlations to be drawn between gun laws in specific states and gun violence overall. I have not researched this really, not to be able to talk about specific data. I can tell you this is the first place I have ever lived in that as a collective thinks owning a gun is commonplace and that worries about having to protect oneself on a regular basis.