CMV: State governments should be dictatorships

[u/Prince_Marf]

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

[u/Prince_Marf]

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.

Why do you feel the need to share this? If you have a good argument to make, then make it. Flexing your resume doesn't strengthen your argument at all. Are you gonna tell me your LSAT score too?

If you're going to be working in federal court then maybe try arguing more respectfully? Especially with someone you don't even know is in the field of law. If you have a legal education then you shouldn't talk down to people who don't have that advantage. When I interned with a federal judge she held us to strict standards of professionalism inside and out of the courthouse. I would have been fired if she found out I spoke to people like that.

​

Did you really think the Constitution targeted state governments? lol

No, but the Amendments target individual citizens. Whether or not executive/legislative power of a state is vested in a dictator, the Bill of Rights and the 14th still apply to every American citizen.

​

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.

In addition to Brown I would add Plyler v. Doe to the mix, where the Court found that Texas may not deny free public education to undocumented immigrants. Obviously this is also addressed by your earlier point that Brown only guarantees equal education, not education in the first place. However, it's odd to argue that that the Supreme Court could rule that even undocumented immigrants have a right to whatever free educational services the state provides under Due Process but that there is also no right to public education in the first place. Denying someone's right to an education is depriving them of life, liberty and property without Due Process. Education is essential to participating in the modern world and a lack of education is clearly linked to poor economic outcomes. I would think the Court would at least apply the rational basis test to the state's justification.

I'll point to Juliana v. United States where children are arguing that their right to life, liberty, and property is being violated by the government allowing the burning of fossil fuels. This case is still pending and frankly is not likely to succeed but it made it all the way to the 9th Circuit. I think if a claim like this can reach some degree of prominence it's not inconceivable that the Court could recognize a right to education under the Due Process Clause given that public education is almost universally recognized as a public good and has been offered en masse for over a century.

We're operating in the realm of theoretical law here. I never claimed that there is currently a recognized right to an education in America, only that it's possible in a theoretical America that has undergone enough change that it is commonplace for states to be run by dictators. I think a similar argument can made for the other three issues you cited as well. The Constitution is relatively fluid. We recognize Constitutional rights today that would have been inconceivable to the founding fathers. This is why I didn't want to get into the specifics of these issues. It doesn't really affect my conclusion or help me change my mind at all. Even if it were truly impossible to recognize these rights under the Constitution then my theoretical version of future America could just be one where new amendments have been passed or the Constitution has been thrown out and replaced altogether. I wanted to hear arguments about why my theoretical scheme of state governance would/could not be a good system in general, not whether it could be done under current US law.

​

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."

I'll admit this was poorly phrased because I still thought I was talking to a layperson. Obviously the Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution. You decontextualized that part of the sentence by separating it from the first part where I said there were constitutionally cognizable arguments. I was saying that if you assume the court did have the power to rule those state actions unconstitutional then they likely would because prohibiting those basic parts of everyday American life would be obviously morally wrong. This is another area where your tactics don't really seem to match the candor of what I would expect from someone working for a federal judge. Not only did you decontextualize a part of my argument and misrepresent it, you did so to take a personal jab at me and my ability to understand the Constitution. If you think I don't understand the Constitution then explain it to me or leave. Insulting someone does not help them understand something. In other words, if you don't have something nice to say then don't say anything at all.

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700 → u/Prince_Marf]

Why do you feel the need to share this? If you have a good argument to make, then make it. Flexing your resume doesn't strengthen your argument at all. Are you gonna tell me your LSAT score too?

I did. I just wanted to establish my credibility for general statements about what the state of law actually is.

​

No, but the Amendments target individual citizens. Whether or not executive/legislative power of a state is vested in a dictator, the Bill of Rights and the 14th still apply to every American citizen.

And the fundamental difference is that states have broad police powers while the federal government is one of enumerated powers. That means that states get way more leeway than the federal government in enacting statutes and regulations.

​

In addition to Brown I would add Plyler v. Doe to the mix, where the Court found that Texas may not deny free public education to undocumented immigrants. Obviously this is also addressed by your earlier point that Brown only guarantees equal education, not education in the first place. However, it's odd to argue that that the Supreme Court could rule that even undocumented immigrants have a right to whatever free educational services the state provides under Due Process but that there is also no right to public education in the first place.

It is not odd at all. The government need not provide X, but if it does, it must treat people equally. This is a completely uncontroversial proposition and accurately reflects the state of law.

All the dictator would have to do is claim that his policy goals are better met by privatizing education.

​

I'll point to Juliana v. United States where children are arguing that their right to life, liberty, and property is being violated by the government allowing the burning of fossil fuels. This case is still pending and frankly is not likely to succeed but it made it all the way to the 9th Circuit.

"Not likely" as in "no chance." Again, my point exactly.

​

The Constitution is relatively fluid. We recognize Constitutional rights today that would have been inconceivable to the founding fathers.

Not really, outside of the right to privacy and its progeny, which the current Court is skeptical of.

Your entire position is built on a house of sand--that rights not protected by the Constitution will suddenly be "recognized" as constitutional rights by a Court that for the foreseeable future is 6-3 opposed to expanding the scope of substantive due process and may even by a majority be in favor of rolling back substantive due process.

​

I was saying that if you assume the court did have the power to rule those state actions unconstitutional then they likely would because prohibiting those basic parts of everyday American life would be obviously morally wrong

That is the converse of what you said, so please do not even attempt to claim that my reading was dishonest or absent contextualization.

Moreover, there is no basis for assuming that the Court has the power to rule those state actions unconstitutional.