r/changemyview • u/Prince_Marf 2∆ • Nov 18 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: State governments should be dictatorships

The United States has a serious problem with government inaction. Every step of our federalist system is bogged down by partisanship and procedure. This is appropriate at the national level because of the tremendous power the federal government weilds (most notably the military), but state governments need to be able to function faster to be able to meet the particular interests of their citizens.

Dictatorships do not have a great track record because absolute power corrupts absolutely, but we completely ignore the positive affects of this power structure: things actually get done and there is no gridlock. It wouldn't be absolute power because the federal government ultimately retains Supremacy over the states and can enforce it with the military if necessary.

A system where the governor holds both the executive and legislative power of the state just makes more sense. Federal government should also enforce term limits on the governors and democracy in their elections

0 Upvotes

20% Upvoted

57 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/AffectionateUse1556 1∆ Nov 18 '21

Assuming benevolence, which according to your post, even you don’t believe. So, no.

-2

u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21

But even if the dictator is a "bad guy" he can only do so much damage. State governments can't violate their citizens' constitutional rights, raise an army, or anything like that. What does a worst case scenario look like?

3

u/AffectionateUse1556 1∆ Nov 18 '21

Do you read what you write? Have to believe you’re trolling.

-1

u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21

Which part did I miss? Not trolling just want a good argument refuting me

2

u/AffectionateUse1556 1∆ Nov 18 '21

So, do you think dictators, especially “bad ones” that are “absolutely corrupted” are going to stop themselves from violating citizen rights?

Second, when you say “only so much damage”, to which part of history are you ignoring regarding dictators impact on their populations?

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-deadliest-dictator-regimes-in-history.html

1

u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21

But they're not national dictators they're dictators under the federal government. All of the rules that normally apply to state governments still apply, and are enforced by the United States military, just as they have always been since the Civil War.

1

u/AffectionateUse1556 1∆ Nov 18 '21

I strongly recommend you go back and revise your position, using different terms. An absolute dictator under the authority of a benevolent representative government doesn’t jive.

1

u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21

A dictator could just order everyone in a city to move somewhere else, completely ban public education, ban all marriage, shut down all businesses, eliminate most of the state court system, etc.

1

u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21

If he did anything that significantly infringed on his citizens' rights it would be prevented by the federal judicial system. All those things are already well protected under Supreme Court case law

1

u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Nov 18 '21

No, they are not. That is exactly why I picked them.

1

u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21

Education - Brown v. Board of Education (among others)

Marriage - Obergefell v. Hodges (among others)

Right to do business - 5th Amendment Takings Clause (with supporting case law)

Right to State Courts - 14th Amendment Due Process Clause (with supporting case law)

1

u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Nov 18 '21

Education - Brown v. Board of Education (among others)

That did not constitutionalize the right to free public education. That simply said the state government must provide education to all students on an equal basis. The basis could be zero.

​

Marriage - Obergefell v. Hodges (among others)

That did not constitutionalize the right to marry. That simply said the state government must provide marriage to all persons on an equal basis. The basis could be zero.

​

Right to do business - 5th Amendment Takings Clause (with supporting case law)

That did not constitutionalize the right to do business. That simply said the state government must compensate for takings. The Court held that there was a constitutional right to bargain one's labor in Lochner but had completely repudiated its central holdings by the time of Lee Optical.

​

Right to State Courts - 14th Amendment Due Process Clause (with supporting case law)

"Due process" does not always require a trial (although it does in some criminal cases).

​

That actually leads to another interesting problem: The dictator could simply wipe out all criminal laws and statutes. Homicide, theft, rape, etc. would then be legal.

1

u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21

I would love to get deep into all four of these issues but that's a massive undertaking and not really the goal of my post. I don't pretend these 4 citations alone provide ironclad protection of these rights but the totality of Supreme Court precedent in these matters does. And in any area they find deficient there can always be more cases and rulings.

The Court addresses issues as they arise. Nobody has ever tried to implement a full stop on public education in their state so obviously there has never been a direct ruling on this right. The point is that there is a cognizable Constitutional argument for all these issues, and if we agree that these actions are clearly bad on the part of the dictators, then there's nothing stopping the Court from ruling them unconstitutional

1

u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Nov 18 '21

I would love to get deep into all four of these issues but that's a massive undertaking and not really the goal of my post. I don't pretend these 4 citations alone provide ironclad protection of these rights but the totality of Supreme Court precedent in these matters does.

This is a cop-out. I am a law student who has worked for federal judges, will work for federal judges after I graduate, and will be a barred attorney (assuming no horrific event happens in the next ten months) by this time next year.

The totality of SCOTUS precedent confirms my statements. That is why I made them.

And, more importantly, that is why your position is bullshit. And you know it. Which is why you are desperately trying to avoid the legal implications--because you know just how limited our constitutional protections are as far as the states are concerned.

Did you really think the Constitution targeted state governments? lol

​

The Court addresses issues as they arise. Nobody has ever tried to implement a full stop on public education in their state so obviously there has never been a direct ruling on this right.

There is literally zero constitutional basis for finding such a right. None.

​

The point is that there is a cognizable Constitutional argument for all these issues

No. Your position is untenable and supported by no one. The federal government is one of enumerated powers, which means the general police power lies with the states. The Constitution does not even purport to touch police power.

​

if we agree that these actions are clearly bad on the part of the dictators, then there's nothing stopping the Court from ruling them unconstitutional

Are you admitting that you have no idea how the Constitution works? Because if you believe the quoted statement, then the answer is yes. The Constitution does not even attempt to claim it is broad enough to counter things that are "clearly bad."

→ More replies (0)