3 ms·

Federal government should enforce antitrust laws on state governments. Given the case law available, all that states do is adversely affecting interstate commer

Federal government should enforce antitrust laws on state governments. Given the case law available, all that states do is adversely affecting interstate commerce, even for things that happen solely intrastate. The Federal Government's tolerance is a work of fiction to maintain compliance. States have a false sense of autonomy under the 10th amendment ever since interstate commerce became the only form of commerce.

cmurf 10y ago
This is dreaming of a new administration very prematurely. On day 1 it withdrew from a federal lawsuit to enforce voting rights on Texas, which enacted a blatantly racist law to engage in voter discrimination. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/2017.01.20_Continuance-Motion.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work... And as a result, the national policy is that voter discrimination is to be left up to the states. If Texas' own citizens decide to discriminate, it's their right, and not for the federal government to question it. Systematic voter discrimination being left up to the states fairly clearly shows anti-competition will be left up to the states as well. I'd hardly call this a work of fiction, it's an emerging fact of the political landscape.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  > This is dreaming of a new administration very prematurely. Thats strange, I hadn't actually attributed this reality to any particular administration. > On day 1 it withdrew from a federal lawsuit to enforce voting rights on Texas This has nothing to do with enforcing federal will through the interstate commerce clause, which is what my post was about. All expansion of the federal government's power domestically, through the interstate commerce clause, is through case law, which is largely exempt from administrations.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    >Thats strange, I hadn't actually attributed this reality to any particular administration. That's strange, considering this administration is openly hostile to the environment, and ran on the traditional Republican platform of state's rights. Voting rights, commerce, environment - these things being relegates to the states vs being reviewable by the federal government are related by how and whether the executive branch decides to act. That they have the legal power through case law doesn't mean they'll actually use it.
    - elastic_church 10y ago
      You can't fathom that I don't care about the present administration? Is it so impossible that my opinion was formed sometime else throughout my life and would be accelerated and equally constitutional if I happened to get in power some day?
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    How would that case law happen if the administration has no interest in pushing the boundaries of what they are allowed to do?
    - elastic_church 10y ago
      Typically one law gets passed for one reason, by administration A. Administration F has no recollection of why Administration A passed the law, and simply sees it as a convenient "thing on the books" to use when someone is technically violating it. The person challenges it in court, and the court establishes the limitations or lack thereof of that. The people in the court and appeals court were most likely appointed during administrations B, C, D, and E. Administration Z simply reacts to these tools available.
- realityking 10y ago
  > This is dreaming of a new administration very prematurely. On day 1 it withdrew from a federal lawsuit to enforce voting rights on Texas, which enacted a blatantly racist law to engage in voter discrimination. > https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/2017.01.20_Continuance-Motion.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work... Did you link to the right document? This is a motion for a continuance, not a withdrawal.
dexterdog 10y ago
States don't take enough autonomy from the 10th and should be taking substantially more, especially when the federal government takes blatant over-steps.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  The federal government, a distinct amorphous entity for sake of discussion, has completely subjugated all of its constituent states, has the same leverage over most foreign states, and merely tolerates any autonomy as long as it is deemed beneficial to the federal government. Even the notion of federalism is a misnomer in this country, the National government has completely subjugated all of its constituent states. Individual united states are bankrupt entities, with toothless nominal agencies. What possible autonomy do you imagine they could muster?

cmurf 10y ago

This is dreaming of a new administration very prematurely. On day 1 it withdrew from a federal lawsuit to enforce voting rights on Texas, which enacted a blatantly racist law to engage in voter discrimination. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/2017.01.20_Continuance-Motion.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work... And as a result, the national policy is that voter discrimination is to be left up to the states. If Texas' own citizens decide to discriminate, it's their right, and not for the federal government to question it. Systematic voter discrimination being left up to the states fairly clearly shows anti-competition will be left up to the states as well. I'd hardly call this a work of fiction, it's an emerging fact of the political landscape.

elastic_church 10y ago
> This is dreaming of a new administration very prematurely. Thats strange, I hadn't actually attributed this reality to any particular administration. > On day 1 it withdrew from a federal lawsuit to enforce voting rights on Texas This has nothing to do with enforcing federal will through the interstate commerce clause, which is what my post was about. All expansion of the federal government's power domestically, through the interstate commerce clause, is through case law, which is largely exempt from administrations.
- cmurf 10y ago
  >Thats strange, I hadn't actually attributed this reality to any particular administration. That's strange, considering this administration is openly hostile to the environment, and ran on the traditional Republican platform of state's rights. Voting rights, commerce, environment - these things being relegates to the states vs being reviewable by the federal government are related by how and whether the executive branch decides to act. That they have the legal power through case law doesn't mean they'll actually use it.
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    You can't fathom that I don't care about the present administration? Is it so impossible that my opinion was formed sometime else throughout my life and would be accelerated and equally constitutional if I happened to get in power some day?
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  How would that case law happen if the administration has no interest in pushing the boundaries of what they are allowed to do?
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    Typically one law gets passed for one reason, by administration A. Administration F has no recollection of why Administration A passed the law, and simply sees it as a convenient "thing on the books" to use when someone is technically violating it. The person challenges it in court, and the court establishes the limitations or lack thereof of that. The people in the court and appeals court were most likely appointed during administrations B, C, D, and E. Administration Z simply reacts to these tools available.
realityking 10y ago
> This is dreaming of a new administration very prematurely. On day 1 it withdrew from a federal lawsuit to enforce voting rights on Texas, which enacted a blatantly racist law to engage in voter discrimination. > https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/2017.01.20_Continuance-Motion.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work... Did you link to the right document? This is a motion for a continuance, not a withdrawal.

dexterdog 10y ago

States don't take enough autonomy from the 10th and should be taking substantially more, especially when the federal government takes blatant over-steps.

elastic_church 10y ago
The federal government, a distinct amorphous entity for sake of discussion, has completely subjugated all of its constituent states, has the same leverage over most foreign states, and merely tolerates any autonomy as long as it is deemed beneficial to the federal government. Even the notion of federalism is a misnomer in this country, the National government has completely subjugated all of its constituent states. Individual united states are bankrupt entities, with toothless nominal agencies. What possible autonomy do you imagine they could muster?