More on state sovereignty
Yesterday I posted a quick link to Josh Patashnik’s defense of states’ rights.
Patashnik argues that state-level policy making is valuable because there is a class of policy questions that are too local to be effectively legislated at the national level, but which do not require municipal-level policy. This much can be granted. But states’ rights proponents are generally making broader claims to the sovereignty of states, not merely a claim to their functional usefulness as makers of local policy.
Patashnik then moves on the defend the claim to state sovereignty, using carbon regulation as an example:
It seems unfair to force residents of sparely populated states with carbon-intensive economies to bear most of the costs of adopting a policy designed to benefit the nation as a whole.
This is poor example for the point Patashnik is trying to make. Carbon regulation is an example where regional differences come down not to culture, preferences, or policy experimentation. It is simply that some parts of the country must lose in order for the whole to win.
There is certainly room for state-wide policy making. However, its not clear that the framers clearly anticipated issues like climate change that require only a national solution. Is there a better case to be made for the continued existence of state sovereignty?
-John
Related posts:
- National vs. state standards for education and why it matters
- A state by any other name
- States’ rights and “geographic minorities”
- Can you have a republican, religious state?
- Wild on: state secrets
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
