There is a new trend among state legislatures to pass laws that are in direct or indirect contradiction to federal statutes.

1.  South Dakota/Wyoming – Passed a bill saying that federal gun statutes are invalid if the gun is made and used in SD or Wyoming respectively.

2.  Oklahoma/Utah – Passed a resolution allowing them to opt out of any new federal healthcare mandates.

3.  Alabama/Tennessee/Washington – Considering measures that would give local police authorities supremacy over federal agents in certain situations.

While there maybe some legal roadblocks to these specific measures that will be played out in court for years to come that I choose not to understand or even list, the message is the same: Keep your federal hands out of our state’s cookie jars – or some such appropriate analogy.  Which I think is awesome.

One of the few things I learned in school was that the text book says that Republicans prefer power to be centralized in the state while Democrats prefer power to be centralized with the federal government.  Turns out, that was complete bullshit – depending on which party was in power in DC determines who favors the federal government changed each party’s viewpoint on the matter.  The idea that the federal government should be in control of state education or that creating a massive bureaucracy for national security are ideas that would have been shunned by the Republicans – had a Democrat been behind them instead of “No Child Left Behind” and the “Department of Homeland Security” during the Bush II administration.  But I digress

I personally think it’s great that states are stepping up and having a larger say in how things should be run in their state.  As long as nothing too crazy is passed (Dakotas and your wacky abortion laws, I’m looking at you).  And don’t get me wrong there times the federal government needs to step in from time to time (segregation, women’s rights, etc.)

My reasoning is as follows:

1.  Survival of the fittest states:  If an ackbassword state in the south wants to pass a law saying that they don’t want the government to regulate something, good luck.  We’ll see how that works out for them, and if it doesn’t, sucks to be that state.

2.  Useful state laws: While this idea is commonly propagated from the right, think of the cool stuff left-ish states could do!  Legalize marijuana, legalize all forms of gambling, legalize gay marriage – the list could go on and on with stuff that the federal government will never do because it is controlled by the corporate oligarchy but a state could do easily.

3.  Innovation in politics:  With clean elections in Arizona and Maine, average citizens can run for office and get elected without belonging to the Republicans and Democrats.  Think of it: a person in power to enact real change who is not beholden to the idiotic right or the nonsensical left – that’s change I can believe in.

So, are state rights a viable option for change in America?  Where is the line drawn between state and federal jurisdiction?  What would your state pass?  Are these questions getting annoying?  You really think so?