Well, the way it was designed was to allow the national government to do certain things that would be inefficient for each state to do (e.g., national defense), while leaving everything else for the states. The thought is that because the U.S. is so large, leaving things for each state will allow the states--and thus the country--to be more responsive to their residents. But as time went on, the national gov't usurped increasingly more power (esp. during the Roosevelt years), yet there is still a belief among Americans that the smaller units know best. And I think there is something to be said for that. Especially the experimentation function. If one state successfully innovates, then the others have an incentive to copy. Like corporations law. It's surprisingly uniform because each state has the incentive to attract businesses. Yet, if the national gov't were to regulate all corporate law, it would likely not be nearly as efficient, since there wouldn't have been 50 experiments to see what was right.Tell me, do you think London or Bermuda knows what's best for Bermudians?
The noobs are so into themsleves you'd think they allready have offers at Tool, Tool, feminine hygiene product & Dumbass LLC
Each state is considered sovereign, though.
Quote from: cahow on May 15, 2007, 10:33:59 AMQuote from: Alci on May 15, 2007, 10:30:31 AMEach state is considered sovereign, though.That's the part that I don't get. I understand different countries being sovereign (ie Scotland in the UK), but different states? It almost doesn't make sense! But thank god for it! The people of MA want different laws than the people of AL.
Quote from: Alci on May 15, 2007, 10:30:31 AMEach state is considered sovereign, though.That's the part that I don't get. I understand different countries being sovereign (ie Scotland in the UK), but different states? It almost doesn't make sense!
Dear future bar applicants, Day 2. Property. Oh joyous property. How do we love thee. Let us count the ways.....Let's not and say we did. Today we did the property test. Got 15 out of 50. HA again! I love it! This is an eye opening experience. Although, I must say, that as I was going through the property questions, I actually did know the answers at one point, and even if I couldn't get the correct answer I still fully understood what was going on in each question, knew what the issue was, and could narrow it down between one of two answers. Unlike Contracts, which I effectively learned for the first time ever on Monday, May 14th, 2007.
Q: When Must a Property Owner Use a Thirty (30) Day Notice?A: To terminate a month to month tenancy. To raise the rent 10% or less of the lowest rent over the past twelve months for a month to month tenancy. To change any terms of a month to month rental agreement. Neither tenants or property owners have to state a reason to terminate tenancy. Property owners do not have to state a reason to raise the rent or change the terms of the rental agreement.
Page created in 0.435 seconds with 17 queries.