My exercise of a right — say, the right of free speech — is not subject to question or inquiry. “Why did you criticize President Obama just now?” is not a question that I have to answer. “Why did you arrest me just now?” is a question that the police *DO* have to answer.

Once states have rights, then they begin to be able to do things like arrest people, censor speech, and refuse to recognize their marriages — without being subject to any kind of questioning or inquiry. I think the whole point of your post is that the way that pro-marriage states like New York, anti-marriage states like Texas, and the Federal government — all of these governmental entities are properly subject to questioning and inquiry with regards to the way they treat individuals, in this case the way they treat their marriages. And this is as it should be.

Governor Perry’s 10th Amendment take on the issue is, I think, a signal that a group of politicians (who are generally not known for their insistence on procedural formalism so much as their desire for particular policy outcomes) are readying themselves for an eventual defeat on this particular policy fight, a fight that until now they have been mostly winning. New York has signalled to them that their momentum has expired but the momentum of the pro-marriage side of the debate has increased past a critical threshold and will only continue to increase for the foreseeable future. So they apply the balm of procedural formalism to their political wound and move on to the next fight.

Still wrong, still discriminatory, but probably an OK political platform for someone like Perry.

We do have proportional government, or that is a component of our system.

From the beginning was the stark realization that the nation was comprised of communities with different values and different economies. The two most serious proposals were either that representatives be selected based on population or that each state (or region) gets one representative.

We settled on both. The Senate is comprised of two representative per state (be it California or Rhode Island) while the House of Representatives would have electors according to population. This way highly populated states with a strongly industrial economy would not overrun smaller population states with a rural economy. Or vice versa.

The President is elected by a peculiar system: a majority of majorities.

Each state has a number of votes according to its population. And each can decide how to assign them. Most states selected a winner-takes-all approach in which it gives all of its votes to the winner of the state vote. But at least one allocates its votes according to the election in a bit of a complicated formulas.

Some people advocate for a “national election” in which each person gets one vote for president. However, less populated states fear that this would result in a campaign season in which candidates simply stayed in California, New York, Illinois, and Texas and in which the candidates would adopt policies that appeal to the values of those states to the detriment of others. And since there are a lot more small states than large states, that’s going nowhere.

While it would significantly shift the policies adopted, it probably would not impact the outcome much. The only president to win the election but not the “popular vote” in recent history was George W. Bush in 2000 and before that you have to go back to Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

(Interestingly the president with the second-highest ever popular vote was Richard Nixon’s reelection on November 7, 1972 with 60.67%. Less than two years later with virtually no public support at all, he resigned on August 7, 1974.)

And as for the power of the President… not much really. He can veto bills. He can set policies and select overseers (subject to Senate approval) for the departments he administers.

The President’s greatest power is “the bully pulpit”, his ability to appeal to the people and put pressure on Congress to advance his agenda. And as the President is the only nationally elected official (other than the completely powerless Vice President), he is given a great deal of deference (especially within his party) and his policies are considered the “mandate of the people”.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/19653/guest-column-by-tobias-barrington-wolff-doma-repeal-and-the-truth-about-full-faith-credit

To give Darina a clue about our federal system: it works very well most of the time. Different states have their separate laws, but in most things they end up being generally pretty similar because all states have to base their laws on the principles of the federal constitution. Just as different cities in one country can have different laws but still be part of the same country, you see? Only states, of course, cover a much bigger area and have more powers than cities.

Some states were at one time separate countries, like my own state of Texas, but they are not now, and ultimately they must bow to federal authority, if there is a dispute. Our Civil War settled that point.

It is a bit confusing. Each state operates in many ways like a country. There is a constitution, a bilateral government, a separate judicial system, taxes, social welfare structures, educational system, and most laws which impact daily life are state laws.

The federal government traditionally dealt with matters such as political and military relations with other countries, ensuring that states honor the civil rights of its citizens and the overseeing the way in which states deal with each other.

Over time the feds have created a number of programs such as government operated retirement and elderly health care system, interstate freeway system, and a large number of bureaucracies that guide the states in matters such as Education, Commerce, Health, Transportation and a few, such as drug policy and speed limits in which the feds pretty much usurped the role of the states and dictated policy.

The balance between a strong and authoritarian central government and smaller more localized control has been a bone of contention since before the nation was formed with constitutional proposals from either extreme. But I think that it would be fair to say that over time the country has become significantly more centralized and that states are slowly taking on the role of ‘local administrators’ rather than autonomous entities.

You must remember that the US was put together at a time before fast transport was available. Also, the different states have quite different histories. Many inherit their law from England, but some from France or Spain, which have quite different systems (they aren’t common law countries).

Basically, the US system is an early draft at democracy. It’s a bit creaky now, and could do with an overhaul. (Bringing in proportional representation would be a good start, I think. Then they could get rid of the elected monarch and introduce a proper president with far less power.)

Disclaimer: I’m Irish, and probably don’t know what I’m talking about.

TRiG.

Just how federal is your federation? Are the states separate countries, or not? In theory, they must be, if they have separate legislations (which isn’t the same as local self-government). In practice, is moving to another state really moving to another country – now, in the 21st century?

There must be some (cultural?) reason why I find this form of federalism so difficult to understand, but I can’t figure out what exactly it is.