Discussion
Question 1
The phrase “laboratories of democracy,” remain the most popular and treasured notion in the American politics. The American Supreme court justice Louis Brandeis remains accredited for articulating and coining the phrase in 1932. In a case involving The New State Ice Company versus Liebmann, Justice Louis Brandeis ruled out that a single state may serve as a laboratory of democracy as it may innovate and experiment novel economic and social policies without inflicting fear and risk to the rest of the nation (Ferejohn, 78). In the ruling, Justice Lous Brandeis dissented that a state can serve as a laboratory of democracy through its citizen consent. Over the years, the question on whether state can serve as “laboratories of democracy,” or not remains a topic of discussion. Some people support the phrase while others oppose it.
Despite the diverse views on this subject, it is imperative when states serve as laboratories of democracy in a devolved government. In essence, several benefits accrue when national policies are initiated at the state level. Firstly, the move encourages states to innovate and experiment the proposed policies. Providing states with necessary resources and authority over a national policy encourage experimentation and innovation because the state owns the idea holistically. The state feels that it has the responsibility of ensuring it succeeds in initiating and implementing the policy for the benefit of its people. Secondly, the state learns the drawbacks and merits associated with implementing the national policy. This infers that state would have adequate time to examine and evaluating viability of the policy (Zimmermann, 67).
In most cases, viable innovations would be adopted at the national level while unsuccessful policies would be abandoned thus reducing government expenditure.
States experience numerous problems when implementing and experimenting the policy, but lack of adequate of resources remain the key challenge. This means that states cannot examine and evaluate the effectiveness and viability of the policy before declaring it suitable at the national level. Despite the challenges experienced by the state, the federal government should regulate experimentation of public policy at the state level in order to minimize risks and harm. Although the federal government perform an oversight role, it does not mean that state be accorded less discretionary authority. Depriving the state, the discretionary authority reduces its effectiveness and efficiency to experiment the viability of the innovation. Based on this assertion, states have the legal right to explicit their discretionary authority in decision-making process.
Question 2:
The issue of same-sex marriage remains a controversial topic in America as it elicits varied reactions from the public, civil rights movement and government agencies. The contentious point revolves on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized or not. Proponents support legalization of the same-sex marriage while other people oppose the move. Same-sex marriage remains legal in more than thirteen states in America. Delaware, California, Lowa and Maryland are some of the states, which have legalized same-sex marriage. In 2009, the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage after Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the bill thus making it the first district to allow same-sex marriage (Robert, 56). However, not only states have legalized same-sex marriage in America because of various reasons. Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina are some of the states that have not legalized same-sex marriage in America.
The concept of same-sex marriage is a morality issue and the federal government has the role to play. Under the constitution, the state government addresses legal issues touching on marriage. Before the enactment of Defense of Marriage Act (1996), the federal government did not precisely define marriage and each state defined marriage the way it so fit (Pnello, 102). This meant that federal government had to accept and recognize any marriage defined by the state including same-sex marriage. In order to resolve this issue, the federal government should play an oversight role and persuade states to refrain from legalizing same-sex marriage. Although federal government is not directly involved in issue of marriage, it should collaborate with state governments in resolving this issue. In order to address this issue, the federal government should only recognize marriage between a man and women as articulated in Defense of Marriage Act 1996: section 3. This move would restore dignity and morality of the society.
Works cited
.
Ferejohn, John. The New Federalism: Can the States be Trusted?. New York: Hoover Press, 2000. Print.
Pnello, Daniel. America's Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print.
Robert, Sean. Same-sex Marriage in the United States: Focus on the Facts. London: Lexington Books, 2004. Print.
Zimmermann, Joseph. Congressional Preemption: Regulatory Federalism. New York: SUNY Press, 2005. Print.
