Could America's States stand alone without the Federal Government?

2014-02-24T22:39:58-05:00

Could individual States in America be without the Federal Government? Could States act on their own, without ties to Federal Law or taxation, and still be united? Each state run just as independently and be successful? If so, what improvements or short comings can you see taking place?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2014 10:43 PM

2014-02-24T22:43:58-05:00

No I dont think so because we need a higher to be responsible.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made May 16 at 2014 12:57 PM

2014-05-16T12:57:30-04:00

It's unrealistic to think so. Some states like CA and TX might be able to stand on their own IF they were willing to jack the hell out of tax rates because of lost Federal subsidies and the economic impact military bases have. They'd also have to figure out how to provide their own defense. No easy feat for states like CA or TX with extensive coastlines and borders with Mexico. Smaller states, like CT, RI, AR, would really take it on the chin. Basically, we tried this under the Articles of Confederation, an arrangement predating the present Constitution. It didn't work then - it won't work now.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2014 5:17 PM

2014-05-18T17:17:59-04:00

No. Do I need to say more?

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 18 at 2014 6:59 AM

2014-07-18T06:59:19-04:00

No, we would be called Europe if that happened.

Response by SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham made Jul 18 at 2014 11:11 AM

2014-07-18T11:11:45-04:00

Some could (for a while), but other world powers could (and likely would) swoop down on the individual states like big, hungry birds on a beach full of baby turtles headed for the waves. Ugly thought for the nation...
As proud as we are of each state, it takes the union for each to have come to their peak potential (and some have passed that point).

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2014 11:01 PM

2014-07-18T23:01:17-04:00

Honestly I think it depends on the state. People that receive federal "bailouts" aka welfare, would probably follow the freebees out of state, leaving the working class to continue contributing to the state. The prosperity of the working class would be enticing to those who prefer productivity to laziness and possibly drive out-of-state migration.

That being said, all one must do is read the enumerated powers that the government is "supposed" to adhere to and the 10th amendment to understand that the Fed has usurped a lot of power over the states that Constitutionally doesn't belong to them.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2014 4:43 AM

2014-07-19T04:43:40-04:00

Yes they could, and there is precedent to support this. Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, each state acted independently of one another. In this age the individual states would have to engage in some costly and redundant actions in order to stand on their own. The single most important of these would be the printing of and coining of state currencies (again not without precedent).

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2014 2:06 AM

2014-10-11T02:06:36-04:00

A very interesting question, but I do not think so. There are few states that produce enough food or resources to sustain themselves on their own.

Response by A1C Thomas Leary made Oct 15 at 2014 10:51 PM

2014-10-15T22:51:55-04:00

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2014 5:08 AM

2014-10-16T05:08:49-04:00

No it would be called American Union

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Oct 16 at 2014 5:14 AM

2014-10-16T05:14:51-04:00

You know me, I'm gonna throw a wrench in here and say with the way Washington is going anymore, some states may soon find out. We do need a higher power but it needs to be a responsible and competent one.

Response by SGT Charles Vernier made Dec 14 at 2014 12:16 PM

2014-12-14T12:16:47-05:00

I know that this is an old question. However, it is of interest to me. The federal system of government was supposed to allow the states to have a much greater degree of Autonomy than they do today. The federal government was to provide for the common defense, print a standard currency, ensure that all citizens had the same rights enumerated in the constitution, etc, ratify treaties with other countries etc. Today the strtes are often highly dependent on the federal government for operating revenue, and the federal government often takes actions that limit the autonomy of each state. The Interstate Commerce Clause has allowed the federal government to drastically expand it's powers. Federal funding also greatly influence what states do (e.g. adopt a .08 DUI law or no federal highway money). That being said 50 independent states presents a whole host of issues such as military forces, treaties, trade, food supply etc. although not without precedent the dynamics would be tenuous at best.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Mar 29 at 2015 2:19 AM

2015-03-29T02:19:44-04:00

I know Texas would like to try!!!!

Response by SMSgt Robert Dahl made Aug 19 at 2020 4:42 PM

2020-08-19T16:42:29-04:00

Yes, they could. It all comes down to divesting certain functions of service back into private industry. Why not contract out for the cheapest, fastest, and most efficient way to run a DMV? I bet there are private companies that can incentivize the production of driver's licenses. As long as the individual state ensures compliance with their Statute, there's no reason a government office can be turned over to private industry.