Reference no: EM131390793

In this discussion you will make a total of three posts, one initial post and two reply posts. Initial posts should be 200-250 words. Reply posts should be 100-150 words. Points will be deducted for not meeting the minimum word count requirements. In your responses to other students, you will address the student by name and sign your name at the end of your post. Points will be deducted for not doing so.

Respond on thins two posts

1)In my opinion these issues should be left up to each state to decide. The reason being is because each states views on these matters vary so much. However, if the federal government makes a decision it blankets that decision for each and every state and it becomes our entire countries stance on the matter. In my opinion that just isn't fair to the people. One of the great things about this country is that we allow others to have different views on topics and we give them a chance, by voting on those matters, to affect how our government handles the issue.

If an entire state is obviously very dominant on an issue why is there a need for the federal government to step in? If people do not like a States stance on political issues they can just choose not to live there. No one is tied up and held hostage in where they choose to live so to me it makes more sense to have issues, like those mentioned in the question, handled at a state level. For example, I can already say that after I graduate I will not be staying in New Jersey due to strict gun laws. It is my opinion that stricter gun laws do not help with anything; I do believe in stricter more in depth background checks but not restrictions on guns themselves. The bright side of this issue is not every state has the same laws so I am free to live somewhere where that is not the case.

2)I think that with so many different state political cultures it would be impossible to ever come to a complete consensus on controversial issues. Each of the components which make up a state's political culture help to illustrate why coming to a complete consensus on issues would be difficult. Sociodemographics alone make a total consensus difficult to imagine. For example, states such as Mississippi (21.9% poverty rate), might find issues such as the amount of government aid people can receive to be more important than someone living in New Hampshire (9.2% poverty rate). Further, a liberal state such as California will have a vastly different stance on certain topics than a conservative state like Texas.

In general, pro-abortion is regarded as a liberal viewpoint, thus, California would likely favor this stance more so than Texas. The relative presence of organized interest groups can also make a difference. People in states which have a high presence of interest groups might feel like they have more of a say on things. For example, parents might be more inclined to speak up about their education standards and preferences if they know they will be heard through an organized interest group. I do not think it is necessary for states to come to a consensus. I think one of the good things about state's rights is that the states hold so much power. Since all states will never come to a complete consensus, the best thing that can happen is letting states decide on matters on their own - thus, they are able to cater to their own unique state political culture.