Why would a state as rich as California send money to Washington which empowered Washington to force it to have laws it doesn't want? I read that Cal. was the sixth biggest economy in the world.
Califronia may be the sixth biggest economy in the world but it is also constantly on the verge of bankruptcy and absolutely depends on dollars from Washington just to keep its infrastructure going. Don't ask me to explain that. An economist I'm not. The way things have developed, no state can raise enough funds on its own these days to maintain certain basic services.
I think you're also under a misaprehension here. California as a state, i.e. the government of California, sends no money to Washington. Citizens of California, however, are also citizens of the USA and, as such, pay the same incometax and federal exise tax as rsidents of all other states. And businesses headquartered in California pay federal taxes like evryone else. They also pay taxes to the state of California. The fact that Cal. has the sixth largest economy in the world has no bearing on the amount of monmey that the state's government is able to collect from its citizens. And a state that large needs a hell of a lot of money just to supply such basic services to its citizens as police protection, education, transportation etc. etc.
The US doesn't seem to be a proper nation. Our laws apply everywhere.
Yes, the UK, like most (all?) European nations has a centralized form of government. The US has a federal system of government. In its original conception, don't forget, the states were envisioned as being independent countries (states
). By joining into a federation of united
states. they agreed to give up certain rights that independent countries usually have, e.g. the right to make foreign treaties, the right to have their own navies (although, of course, they maintained their own armies in the form of the militias) and several other rights that were claimed by the central gov ernment. The Constitution spells out quite clearly what the rights of the Federal government are and makes it point to add that all rights not so enumerated belong to the various separate states.
Well now. This notion of absolute states' rights was sorely tested during the American Civil War when some Southern states decided to simply secede from their membership in this federation. They, no doubt, thought they had the right to do so as the Constitution says nothing whatever about termination of state membership. The outcome of that war showed rather conclusively that states' rights are limited, that Federal law trumps state law every time.
What else do you need to know, Spendi?