6 ms·
Good. The states need to step up when the federal government isn't doing what they want.
by muninn_ 9y ago
Good. The states need to step up when the federal government isn't doing what they want.
- windsword 9y agoUS Constitution. Article 1, Section 10.
- octonion 9y agoIt's a research collaboration.
- mondoshawan 9y agoIt's a signed agreement to collaborate and adjust trade behind closed doors with a foreign power. Foreign trade is reserved as a power for Congress, and foreign policy a power for the executive, is it not?
- muninn_ 9y agoDon't see how that's relevant here
- mondoshawan 9y agoFTA: > Brown later held a closed-door meeting with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, during which the two pledged to expand trade between California and China with an emphasis on so-called green technologies that could help address climate change, Brown said. From the Constitution, article 1 section 10: > 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.
- philipov 9y ago"...or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." There's the out. It may (and will) be argued that climate change is an imminent Danger that will not admit of delay. The associativity of the clauses is just ambiguous enough that the last one can be paired with any of the others, not just engaging in war. And, I am confident there are people in California willing to take that argument to the Supreme Court.
- mondoshawan 9y agoYeah, I see it. I also see the dangers associated with it. Without a singular source of international relations, foreign powers can fracture the union in very bad ways. Though I suppose we're all pretty much divided at this point anyway, so there's not much point in being concerned anymore, is there?
- marcoperaza 9y agoI see we are reaching new heights of sophistry in our disregard for the Constitution. It's clearly not an response to an "imminent Danger that will not admit of delay" if the agreement in question takes no urgent and effective action. Or if the danger in question is something on the scale of decades away, where action starting today is just about as effective (or ineffective) as action starting a year or two years from now.
- nerdponx 9y agoPeople have been making constitutional arguments like this for a long time. It's not new.
- gasbag 9y agoCommerce that remains internal to a state also shouldn't be regulated by the interstate commerce clause, yet that's been done for almost a century. There are no new heights of sophistry here, US history is littered with examples of convoluted logic to find constitutional grounds for whatever those in (various levels of) power want to do.
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tdb7893 9y agoThere doesn't seem to be any binding agreement so it doesn't seem applicable
- panzer_wyrm 9y agoIf it is not binding then it is not agreement.
- tdb7893 9y agoI can agree to the statement "we should work together on climate change" without making a binding commitment (which in my opinion would mean anything enforceable) so I'm not sure I get your point
- Corristowolf 9y agoThat's what the libertarians wanted all along. Even better would be a crowdfunding campaign for the Paris Climate Accord.