7 ms·

>US states are not merely administrative divisions (like provinces in other nations) but are literal independently-governed states i think that's kind of exagg

>US states are not merely administrative divisions (like provinces in other nations) but are literal independently-governed states i think that's kind of exaggerating the situation a bit. They maybe have a bit more control over their own affairs than most country's provinces do, but the degree of autonomy a province has varies quite a bit from country to country. there's nothing that fundamentally make a state different to a province besides the name, and comparing a US state with an EU member nation is just silly.

ars 10y ago
You should learn more about a topic before posting. It's very much like the EU: Each state is independent, and there is an overall governing body - the federal government, which for the most part can't tell states what to do, it can only give or withhold money to induce them. There are specific rules about what the Federal government can and can't tell a state. One difference that does exist is military, where EU states can have a military (as far I know), but US states can not.
- douche 10y ago
  > One difference that does exist is military, where EU states can have a military (as far I know), but US states can not Even that is a little shaky, as historically there were organized state militias, which eventually evolved into the National Guard. Even now, the National Guard formations for each state are under the direct control of that state, rather than directly subordinated to the federal government.
- billforsternz 10y ago
  If you admit uncertainty over whether EU states can have a military or not (yes obviously EU states can and do have their own military forces), perhaps you shouldn't lecture people on learning more before posting?
- lettergram 10y ago
  I do believe the US states can have a state militia and I believe some other form of national guard.
- notatoad 10y ago
  The one big difference between an EU member nation and a state is that EU member nations can leave. A US state cannot secede, and so is ultimately under the control of the federal government.
- int_19h 10y ago
  > One difference that does exist is military, where EU states can have a military (as far I know), but US states can not. Not so. US states cannot have a standing army without consent of Congress. The Congress has given such consent in the form of the Militia Act a century ago, which enabled the states to create the National Guard and the State Defense Forces / State Guard. And while NG can be federalized (i.e. put under the federal chain of command, with the president as commander as chief), SDF are not - their chain of command terminates with the governor, and they cannot be used outside of state boundaries. Most people in US know about the National Guard, but not about SDF. It's largely because the latter is rather small and obscure, and mostly used as a sort of civil defense agency with a military chain of command (many states don't even arm their units). But it's an interesting system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
  - srtjstjsj 10y ago
    Note that the original Articles of Confederation included an explicit provision for State militias, that got replaced by the awkwardly worded 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights
- tormeh 10y ago
  >It's very much like the EU The EU, despite its name, is essentially a humongous cooperation deal between countries. It has many of the trappings of a nation, but that's an illusion. EU countries are sovereign (consent is required in any alteration of the membership rules and they can leave at will) but US states are not. That's the theory. In practice, the differences are even bigger: There's no EU patent system, for example.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - igravious 10y ago
    Au contraire :) I think the EU is becoming (and in some senses arguably already is) a quasi-state. Hence Brexit. That's kick back. And there is now an EU-wide patent system: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/ https://www.unified-patent-court.org/
    - tormeh 10y ago
      When France goes to war it does so independently of the rest of the EU. And Britain has no obligation to help Sweden if Sweden is invaded. If that's not a hard line between nation-state and not, then I don't know what is.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  Puzzles me, that nobody has mentioned this yet: EU states are nation states, US states are not. The EU is not a nation, the US are. EU states have much more sovereignty than US states written inside laws, but more importantly, through support of their people. This is why there is a Euro crisis and why Brexit happened: The unification of Europe is a beautiful idea and I personally hope it will recover, but while subsets of it were considered as one nation at some point (Austria, Germany etc.) the EU as a whole simply never was and never will be.
umanwizard 10y ago
The difference is where the "sovereign" source of power is. In most countries, even with highly autonomous provinces, the central government can simply pass a law to change their status at will. In the U.S., it cannot. The U.S. federal government only has the right to legislate in a small, whitelisted set of areas and does not have the right to change anything about the States' status or individual State laws beyond that.
- notatoad 10y ago
  That's exactly the same as Canada: the provinces and their authority are defined in the constitution, and it requires a constitutional amendment (which requires agreement of 2/3 of the provinces) to change what the provinces have authority over.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    There is one big difference between US and Canada in that regard. In Canada, the constitution enumerates the powers that the provinces have, and that the federal government cannot encroach on. However, any power that is not enumerated, belongs to the federal government. In US, it is the other way around - the constitution enumerates the powers that the federal government has, and everything that is not on the list is up to the states. And the constitution even has a specific clause (10th Amendment) that reinforces that arrangement.
    - allendoerfer 10y ago
      I Germany it is also like in the US, except that list is very long and growing (next up is the Autobahn).
      - int_19h 10y ago
        In US, the list is also growing in practice, via creative reinterpretation of existing text of the constitution. For example, the constitution says that the federal government has the right to regulate "interstate commerce". Originally, this was actually supposed to allow the feds to prevent the states from impeding commerce with other states (e.g. enacting tariffs on out-of-state goods etc). Over time, it became used instead by the feds to prevent or regulate the trafficking of some goods between states (e.g. the National Firearms Act did it for guns in 1930s). Then, finally, the meaning of "interstate commerce" was reinterpreted to mean any activity that can have a causal relationship on interstate commerce. The decision that sealed this was in a case of a farmer growing wheat for personal consumption (to feed farm animals), in defiance of the federal law that limited production of wheat. The farmer argued that, since the wheat didn't leave his farm, it was not commerce at all; and most certainly wasn't interstate commerce. The Supreme Court ruled that it was, because growing wheat for himself meant that he wasn't buying it on the market, thereby affecting prices, and that this effect crossed state lines - and that therefore Congress was in its right to enact a federal law prohibiting the farmer from doing that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn Since then, this interpretation has been broadly used to regulate a lot of things - obviously, under this interpretation, pretty much anything is "interstate commerce". The most obvious example is the federal drug prohibiting private possession and consumption of drugs.
jimktrains2 10y ago
Does any other country let their subdivision raise armies that are not under the control of the main/federal government? The poorly named national guard in each state in the us is exactly that. In fact, the little rock five were escorted by federal troops facing off against state controlled troops.
- matthewbauer 10y ago
  That's not correct. The National Guards are authorized by Congress and the president has the ultimate authority. Eisenhower was able to override AK gov in this case.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    nit: AK is Alaska.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    The feds can take over the National Guard, but they cannot take over the State Guard / State Defense Force, if a state chooses to have such a thing. The latter also require Congress authorization, in a sense that the state is not allowed to create them without Congress "consenting" (e.g. via legislation): "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." But the Congress only has the power to grant or withhold such authorization; control still remains with the state. And, of course, the states can still have their militias - so long as the state does not explicitly organize them, it's not "keeping troops".
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  The Little Rock Nine were escorted by the Army, and Eisenhower seized control of the AR National Guard from the Governor, not quite a face-off.
  - jimktrains2 10y ago

ars 10y ago

You should learn more about a topic before posting. It's very much like the EU: Each state is independent, and there is an overall governing body - the federal government, which for the most part can't tell states what to do, it can only give or withhold money to induce them. There are specific rules about what the Federal government can and can't tell a state. One difference that does exist is military, where EU states can have a military (as far I know), but US states can not.

douche 10y ago
> One difference that does exist is military, where EU states can have a military (as far I know), but US states can not Even that is a little shaky, as historically there were organized state militias, which eventually evolved into the National Guard. Even now, the National Guard formations for each state are under the direct control of that state, rather than directly subordinated to the federal government.
billforsternz 10y ago
If you admit uncertainty over whether EU states can have a military or not (yes obviously EU states can and do have their own military forces), perhaps you shouldn't lecture people on learning more before posting?
lettergram 10y ago
I do believe the US states can have a state militia and I believe some other form of national guard.
notatoad 10y ago
The one big difference between an EU member nation and a state is that EU member nations can leave. A US state cannot secede, and so is ultimately under the control of the federal government.
int_19h 10y ago
> One difference that does exist is military, where EU states can have a military (as far I know), but US states can not. Not so. US states cannot have a standing army without consent of Congress. The Congress has given such consent in the form of the Militia Act a century ago, which enabled the states to create the National Guard and the State Defense Forces / State Guard. And while NG can be federalized (i.e. put under the federal chain of command, with the president as commander as chief), SDF are not - their chain of command terminates with the governor, and they cannot be used outside of state boundaries. Most people in US know about the National Guard, but not about SDF. It's largely because the latter is rather small and obscure, and mostly used as a sort of civil defense agency with a military chain of command (many states don't even arm their units). But it's an interesting system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  Note that the original Articles of Confederation included an explicit provision for State militias, that got replaced by the awkwardly worded 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights
tormeh 10y ago
>It's very much like the EU The EU, despite its name, is essentially a humongous cooperation deal between countries. It has many of the trappings of a nation, but that's an illusion. EU countries are sovereign (consent is required in any alteration of the membership rules and they can leave at will) but US states are not. That's the theory. In practice, the differences are even bigger: There's no EU patent system, for example.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- igravious 10y ago
  Au contraire :) I think the EU is becoming (and in some senses arguably already is) a quasi-state. Hence Brexit. That's kick back. And there is now an EU-wide patent system: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/ https://www.unified-patent-court.org/
  - tormeh 10y ago
    When France goes to war it does so independently of the rest of the EU. And Britain has no obligation to help Sweden if Sweden is invaded. If that's not a hard line between nation-state and not, then I don't know what is.
allendoerfer 10y ago
Puzzles me, that nobody has mentioned this yet: EU states are nation states, US states are not. The EU is not a nation, the US are. EU states have much more sovereignty than US states written inside laws, but more importantly, through support of their people. This is why there is a Euro crisis and why Brexit happened: The unification of Europe is a beautiful idea and I personally hope it will recover, but while subsets of it were considered as one nation at some point (Austria, Germany etc.) the EU as a whole simply never was and never will be.

umanwizard 10y ago

The difference is where the "sovereign" source of power is. In most countries, even with highly autonomous provinces, the central government can simply pass a law to change their status at will. In the U.S., it cannot. The U.S. federal government only has the right to legislate in a small, whitelisted set of areas and does not have the right to change anything about the States' status or individual State laws beyond that.

notatoad 10y ago
That's exactly the same as Canada: the provinces and their authority are defined in the constitution, and it requires a constitutional amendment (which requires agreement of 2/3 of the provinces) to change what the provinces have authority over.
- int_19h 10y ago
  There is one big difference between US and Canada in that regard. In Canada, the constitution enumerates the powers that the provinces have, and that the federal government cannot encroach on. However, any power that is not enumerated, belongs to the federal government. In US, it is the other way around - the constitution enumerates the powers that the federal government has, and everything that is not on the list is up to the states. And the constitution even has a specific clause (10th Amendment) that reinforces that arrangement.
  - allendoerfer 10y ago
    I Germany it is also like in the US, except that list is very long and growing (next up is the Autobahn).
    - int_19h 10y ago
      In US, the list is also growing in practice, via creative reinterpretation of existing text of the constitution. For example, the constitution says that the federal government has the right to regulate "interstate commerce". Originally, this was actually supposed to allow the feds to prevent the states from impeding commerce with other states (e.g. enacting tariffs on out-of-state goods etc). Over time, it became used instead by the feds to prevent or regulate the trafficking of some goods between states (e.g. the National Firearms Act did it for guns in 1930s). Then, finally, the meaning of "interstate commerce" was reinterpreted to mean any activity that can have a causal relationship on interstate commerce. The decision that sealed this was in a case of a farmer growing wheat for personal consumption (to feed farm animals), in defiance of the federal law that limited production of wheat. The farmer argued that, since the wheat didn't leave his farm, it was not commerce at all; and most certainly wasn't interstate commerce. The Supreme Court ruled that it was, because growing wheat for himself meant that he wasn't buying it on the market, thereby affecting prices, and that this effect crossed state lines - and that therefore Congress was in its right to enact a federal law prohibiting the farmer from doing that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn Since then, this interpretation has been broadly used to regulate a lot of things - obviously, under this interpretation, pretty much anything is "interstate commerce". The most obvious example is the federal drug prohibiting private possession and consumption of drugs.

jimktrains2 10y ago

Does any other country let their subdivision raise armies that are not under the control of the main/federal government? The poorly named national guard in each state in the us is exactly that. In fact, the little rock five were escorted by federal troops facing off against state controlled troops.

matthewbauer 10y ago
That's not correct. The National Guards are authorized by Congress and the president has the ultimate authority. Eisenhower was able to override AK gov in this case.
- umanwizard 10y ago
  nit: AK is Alaska.
- int_19h 10y ago
  The feds can take over the National Guard, but they cannot take over the State Guard / State Defense Force, if a state chooses to have such a thing. The latter also require Congress authorization, in a sense that the state is not allowed to create them without Congress "consenting" (e.g. via legislation): "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." But the Congress only has the power to grant or withhold such authorization; control still remains with the state. And, of course, the states can still have their militias - so long as the state does not explicitly organize them, it's not "keeping troops".
srtjstjsj 10y ago
The Little Rock Nine were escorted by the Army, and Eisenhower seized control of the AR National Guard from the Governor, not quite a face-off.
- jimktrains2 10y ago