4 ms·

It can depend on the particular U.S. State. It's sometimes useful for non-Americans to think of the U.S. like a federation of weak semi-autonomous countries. Ea

by bane 8y ago

It can depend on the particular U.S. State. It's sometimes useful for non-Americans to think of the U.S. like a federation of weak semi-autonomous countries. Each state more or less runs their own affairs unless there's some federal interest in which case the national interest overrides the state one. What this means for this topic is that states organize their territories in sometimes different ways that can seem sometimes bizarre to outsiders. For example, Connecticut divides itself into eight large counties and those counties are further divided into towns. Thus the meaning of "town" in Connecticut means a geographic subdivision and may have nothing or little to do with there actually being a cluster of buildings or even any interesting population at all. In fact, in Connecticut, a city is located within a town and is subordinate to it! Towns may set their own general method of local governance but are subordinate to their counties and then to their state. Louisiana is divided into Parishes that mapped to the Catholic Parishes present in the 19th century instead of counties and are generally run by a governmental body called a Police-Jury which is a combined legislative/executive body with enormous local powers. Virginia is divided into counties, which may have towns and other kinds of human settlements. But cities are independent of their surrounding county and act at a parallel level to counties in terms of political power. The county seat where the county government resides may or may not be in a city, but if it is there will be a parallel and equally powerful city government in the same area. Cities in Virginia, as defined governmental territories have very controlled borders, but may have very small populations. But in other areas, the cities are so large they no longer exist within a county at all and the historic county no longer exists. This has impacts mostly for taxes, schooling and property. But practically the most you would notice is that you could eat at a restaurant on one side of a street and cross to the other to get some coffee and pay a different sales tax on either side. It goes on from there. From a practical standpoint, it almost entirely affects the locals and can be a deciding factor with where people choose to live. For outsiders, it doesn't matter much except that your sales tax might be highly variable as you transit through local governing zones.

tboyd47 8y ago
> It's sometimes useful for non-Americans to think of the U.S. like a federation of weak semi-autonomous countries. That may have been true in the 18th and 19th century, but since the early 1900s, I don't think it's accurate to say that anymore. Nearly every state power has been checked by the federal court system at some point during the 20th century [0]. I didn't know about the Police-Jury system, but it's surely the exception. Wouldn't you agree that state and local governments mostly act within the bounds defined by the federal government? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
- bane 8y ago
  > Wouldn't you agree that state and local governments mostly act within the bounds defined by the federal government? I agree that the Federal government trumps the State government, but I'm not sure that I envision it as "bounds defined by" and more as whenever the random walk of the Federal government intersects with a more local one, the Fed wins. There are plenty of areas that the Federal government can't be bothered to get involved and the more local governments fill in those niches. For example, the Federal government really doesn't care much about local zoning laws or building offsets from city streets and such. But I can also definitely see how it could be viewed as you describe in many cases as well. One thing that I do think is interesting is how poorly EU citizens understand the history (and mistakes!) made in systems like the U.S. to learn and model the future of the EU from.
  - quanticle 8y ago
    I agree that the Federal government trumps the State government, but I'm not sure that I envision it as "bounds defined by" and more as whenever the random walk of the Federal government intersects with a more local one, the Fed wins. Even that isn't always true. In many notable cases (marijuana, gay marriage, segregation) states openly defied the federal government and the federal government let things stand because it would cost too much to intervene to get the states to obey the federal government.
    - SllX 8y ago
      Depends on what you mean by defy. What often gets lost in political debate is that there is Federal law enforcement and then there is State law enforcement. For the purposes of the US Constitution, local law enforcement is State law enforcement, even if a given State might draw a distinction themselves. It is helpful to remember that the US Constitution is architected to recognize three types of entities: US Government, States, and foreign governments. Off the top of my head I couldn’t tell you if it groups tribal governments into foreign governments or distinguishes them from those categories, but for the purposes of this conversation they’re closer to States than to foreign governments. So whether you have counties, boroughs, townships, incorporated cities, school districts, water boards, parishes, independent cities, consolidated cities and counties, villages, capital territories or completely unorganized territory; none of this matters looking from the top down because those are all part of the “States”, and Federal law doesn’t really have to care about those details. As long as there is some kind of work organization there, the Feds can work with them, make agreements and negotiate with whoever has jurisdiction over whatever in whichever State. What this also means is that States and/or their (for the purposes Federal convenience) subordinate entities can make laws and enforce them according to their own constitutions, laws and general policies, and the Federal government has its own parallel set of laws, courts, law enforcement officers, prisons and policies. Parallel, not higher. Your local police department is paid out of your local government’s budget, not out of the Federal budget. So let’s take one of your example’s up there: marijuana. As far as the State of California or Washington is concerned, weed is fine. They aren’t going to spend money raiding pot farms, they’re going to tax them. According to their laws, it is generally legal for medicinal and recreational use, so you will not be arrested by a State law enforcement officer, dragged off to a State court and stuffed into a State prison for possession, use, sale or purchase provided proper procedures are observed. The Feds though? They might still do all of that in this completely parallel legal system over here though. They can’t change* California or Washington law, but residents in these States are still subject to Federal law. Well what about marriage? Well while Congress has the power to regulate substances offered for sale in this country, commerce clause and all that, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about giving Congress or the President license to determine what is and isn’t a lawful marriage in any of the States. According to the 10th amendment, this is clearly reserved for the States since it is a civil issue not specifically reserved for Congress. So unless you can twist the commerce clause to somehow cover marriage, then Congress doesn’t really have a say. No, this didn’t stop all 535 of them from sharing their opinions the very second Gavin Newsom issued that first same-sex marriage certificate, but that was about the extent of what they could do. All of the real debate was largely contained to internal State politics and about the most a Congressional candidate could give was their opinion. What about the Defense of Marriage Act? Here’s where it got only slightly tricky, at least until it was determined to be unconstitutional anyway. Actually that’s pretty much the end of it: it was determined to be unconstitutional. While the States determine who can be married, Congress has given the Federal government the power to offer certain benefits including tax benefits to married couples, which is fine, and DOMA essentially barred same-sex married couples from receiving these benefits, and granted States license to ignore same-sex marriage certificates issued by other States which they would otherwise be obliged to recognize under some other clause of the Constitution. Then SCOTUS struck down Section 3, later Section 5 and rendered Section 2 a casualty in the process. Basically the system worked as designed, even though it was law for close to twenty years. It is fair to say, that when Federal law and State law are in conflict, Federal law does trump State law in most cases. What gets missed is that the Federal government must enforce Federal law. It can get States to help, by coercion or agreement, but sometimes that doesn’t work. That’s why Sanctuary City/State laws can also exist: the States are charged with enforcing their own laws without any expectation of assistance from the FBI or ICE, and it goes both ways: FBI and ICE have to be able to enforce immigration and other Federal laws, with or without assistance from any State they are operating within because something like immigration is explicitly under the jurisdiction of the Congress and Federal government. Sometimes there is a societal conflict, or values conflict, but unless there is a legal conflict, none of that actually matters to the Constitution and by extension, SCOTUS. tl;dr: States/local govs employ their own law enforcement and enforce State/local laws. The Feds employ their own Federal law enforcement to employ Federal law. Neither actually works for the other, but rather in parallel and it is largely up to their discretion when and if to cooperate. * The Feds sometimes make grants for very specific agreements, generally if they want a special kind if cooperation they have to pay for it, but otherwise your police compensation packages come out of your local budget.
larrik 8y ago
> In fact, in Connecticut, a city is located within a town and is subordinate to it! Towns may set their own general method of local governance but are subordinate to their counties and then to their state. Connecticut doesn't actually have county government. Counties are just a way of roughly collecting towns together.
AdrianB1 8y ago
"It's sometimes useful for non-Americans to think of the U.S. like a federation of weak semi-autonomous countries." That would be helpful if it would be true. In old' Europe a the equivalent of a county or city does not have any power to enact and enforce legislation, all the laws are country-wide and enforced by the national police; the only local law enforcement is for parking and minor (no criminal record) misdemeanors. From what I know many counties in US have the power to regulate areas that can be felonies if disobeyed (like gun regulations), something like that is unbelievable around here.
- jganetsk 8y ago
  I think the post was referring to states, not counties, when referring to "countries".
  - AdrianB1 8y ago
    Yes, it was about states, but these states are not equivalent to European states, but with counties because in Europe the lowest level to adopt a law is the state, in US is the county.
    - pard68 8y ago
      Even this rule isn't always true. In Virginia a city can be independent, which means the city and county are the same government. It New England, where counties don't really have much power and the towns have the power that counties generally have in other States. Or Connecticut, where counties only exist because there are federal forms you cannot complete without listing a county. I am sure there are other exceptions too, but these are the places I have lived, and thus know.
    - kiriakasis 8y ago
      > Europe the lowest level to adopt a law is the state This does not really makes any sense. Scotland has a parliament, in Italy some regions have special local powers, and I believe many other countries have various kinds of exceptions.
joe_the_user 8y ago
I would note that when you say "locals", you don't just mean the residents of whatever county, town, perish or whatch-doogle. You mean people who've had some incentive to research the mess. Because a lot of average residents of these areas either don't know their crazy ins-and-outs or don't know these by-laws are unique to their area. I mean, from the air, from a car passing through, etc, the US appears very uniform, more uniform than most of Europe or other parts of the world and a lot of people here take that uniformity as a uniform administration. Moreover, there is a bit more uniformity than the ridiculous administrative rules indicates - zones, policing, codes and so-forth are unified by private entities and generally enacted to achieve the appearance of a uniform country. Note: Also, the multitude of administrative apparatuses here aren't equivalent of, say, two or twenty fused nations threatening to break apart. The US unified this way and the over mess is much of a way for local to hoard their power, rip-off outsiders, etc.

by bane 8y ago

tboyd47 8y ago

> It's sometimes useful for non-Americans to think of the U.S. like a federation of weak semi-autonomous countries. That may have been true in the 18th and 19th century, but since the early 1900s, I don't think it's accurate to say that anymore. Nearly every state power has been checked by the federal court system at some point during the 20th century [0]. I didn't know about the Police-Jury system, but it's surely the exception. Wouldn't you agree that state and local governments mostly act within the bounds defined by the federal government? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

bane 8y ago
> Wouldn't you agree that state and local governments mostly act within the bounds defined by the federal government? I agree that the Federal government trumps the State government, but I'm not sure that I envision it as "bounds defined by" and more as whenever the random walk of the Federal government intersects with a more local one, the Fed wins. There are plenty of areas that the Federal government can't be bothered to get involved and the more local governments fill in those niches. For example, the Federal government really doesn't care much about local zoning laws or building offsets from city streets and such. But I can also definitely see how it could be viewed as you describe in many cases as well. One thing that I do think is interesting is how poorly EU citizens understand the history (and mistakes!) made in systems like the U.S. to learn and model the future of the EU from.
- quanticle 8y ago
  I agree that the Federal government trumps the State government, but I'm not sure that I envision it as "bounds defined by" and more as whenever the random walk of the Federal government intersects with a more local one, the Fed wins. Even that isn't always true. In many notable cases (marijuana, gay marriage, segregation) states openly defied the federal government and the federal government let things stand because it would cost too much to intervene to get the states to obey the federal government.
  - SllX 8y ago
    Depends on what you mean by defy. What often gets lost in political debate is that there is Federal law enforcement and then there is State law enforcement. For the purposes of the US Constitution, local law enforcement is State law enforcement, even if a given State might draw a distinction themselves. It is helpful to remember that the US Constitution is architected to recognize three types of entities: US Government, States, and foreign governments. Off the top of my head I couldn’t tell you if it groups tribal governments into foreign governments or distinguishes them from those categories, but for the purposes of this conversation they’re closer to States than to foreign governments. So whether you have counties, boroughs, townships, incorporated cities, school districts, water boards, parishes, independent cities, consolidated cities and counties, villages, capital territories or completely unorganized territory; none of this matters looking from the top down because those are all part of the “States”, and Federal law doesn’t really have to care about those details. As long as there is some kind of work organization there, the Feds can work with them, make agreements and negotiate with whoever has jurisdiction over whatever in whichever State. What this also means is that States and/or their (for the purposes Federal convenience) subordinate entities can make laws and enforce them according to their own constitutions, laws and general policies, and the Federal government has its own parallel set of laws, courts, law enforcement officers, prisons and policies. Parallel, not higher. Your local police department is paid out of your local government’s budget, not out of the Federal budget. So let’s take one of your example’s up there: marijuana. As far as the State of California or Washington is concerned, weed is fine. They aren’t going to spend money raiding pot farms, they’re going to tax them. According to their laws, it is generally legal for medicinal and recreational use, so you will not be arrested by a State law enforcement officer, dragged off to a State court and stuffed into a State prison for possession, use, sale or purchase provided proper procedures are observed. The Feds though? They might still do all of that in this completely parallel legal system over here though. They can’t change* California or Washington law, but residents in these States are still subject to Federal law. Well what about marriage? Well while Congress has the power to regulate substances offered for sale in this country, commerce clause and all that, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about giving Congress or the President license to determine what is and isn’t a lawful marriage in any of the States. According to the 10th amendment, this is clearly reserved for the States since it is a civil issue not specifically reserved for Congress. So unless you can twist the commerce clause to somehow cover marriage, then Congress doesn’t really have a say. No, this didn’t stop all 535 of them from sharing their opinions the very second Gavin Newsom issued that first same-sex marriage certificate, but that was about the extent of what they could do. All of the real debate was largely contained to internal State politics and about the most a Congressional candidate could give was their opinion. What about the Defense of Marriage Act? Here’s where it got only slightly tricky, at least until it was determined to be unconstitutional anyway. Actually that’s pretty much the end of it: it was determined to be unconstitutional. While the States determine who can be married, Congress has given the Federal government the power to offer certain benefits including tax benefits to married couples, which is fine, and DOMA essentially barred same-sex married couples from receiving these benefits, and granted States license to ignore same-sex marriage certificates issued by other States which they would otherwise be obliged to recognize under some other clause of the Constitution. Then SCOTUS struck down Section 3, later Section 5 and rendered Section 2 a casualty in the process. Basically the system worked as designed, even though it was law for close to twenty years. It is fair to say, that when Federal law and State law are in conflict, Federal law does trump State law in most cases. What gets missed is that the Federal government must enforce Federal law. It can get States to help, by coercion or agreement, but sometimes that doesn’t work. That’s why Sanctuary City/State laws can also exist: the States are charged with enforcing their own laws without any expectation of assistance from the FBI or ICE, and it goes both ways: FBI and ICE have to be able to enforce immigration and other Federal laws, with or without assistance from any State they are operating within because something like immigration is explicitly under the jurisdiction of the Congress and Federal government. Sometimes there is a societal conflict, or values conflict, but unless there is a legal conflict, none of that actually matters to the Constitution and by extension, SCOTUS. tl;dr: States/local govs employ their own law enforcement and enforce State/local laws. The Feds employ their own Federal law enforcement to employ Federal law. Neither actually works for the other, but rather in parallel and it is largely up to their discretion when and if to cooperate. * The Feds sometimes make grants for very specific agreements, generally if they want a special kind if cooperation they have to pay for it, but otherwise your police compensation packages come out of your local budget.

larrik 8y ago

> In fact, in Connecticut, a city is located within a town and is subordinate to it! Towns may set their own general method of local governance but are subordinate to their counties and then to their state. Connecticut doesn't actually have county government. Counties are just a way of roughly collecting towns together.

AdrianB1 8y ago

"It's sometimes useful for non-Americans to think of the U.S. like a federation of weak semi-autonomous countries." That would be helpful if it would be true. In old' Europe a the equivalent of a county or city does not have any power to enact and enforce legislation, all the laws are country-wide and enforced by the national police; the only local law enforcement is for parking and minor (no criminal record) misdemeanors. From what I know many counties in US have the power to regulate areas that can be felonies if disobeyed (like gun regulations), something like that is unbelievable around here.

jganetsk 8y ago
I think the post was referring to states, not counties, when referring to "countries".
- AdrianB1 8y ago
  Yes, it was about states, but these states are not equivalent to European states, but with counties because in Europe the lowest level to adopt a law is the state, in US is the county.
  - pard68 8y ago
    Even this rule isn't always true. In Virginia a city can be independent, which means the city and county are the same government. It New England, where counties don't really have much power and the towns have the power that counties generally have in other States. Or Connecticut, where counties only exist because there are federal forms you cannot complete without listing a county. I am sure there are other exceptions too, but these are the places I have lived, and thus know.
  - kiriakasis 8y ago
    > Europe the lowest level to adopt a law is the state This does not really makes any sense. Scotland has a parliament, in Italy some regions have special local powers, and I believe many other countries have various kinds of exceptions.

joe_the_user 8y ago

I would note that when you say "locals", you don't just mean the residents of whatever county, town, perish or whatch-doogle. You mean people who've had some incentive to research the mess. Because a lot of average residents of these areas either don't know their crazy ins-and-outs or don't know these by-laws are unique to their area. I mean, from the air, from a car passing through, etc, the US appears very uniform, more uniform than most of Europe or other parts of the world and a lot of people here take that uniformity as a uniform administration. Moreover, there is a bit more uniformity than the ridiculous administrative rules indicates - zones, policing, codes and so-forth are unified by private entities and generally enacted to achieve the appearance of a uniform country. Note: Also, the multitude of administrative apparatuses here aren't equivalent of, say, two or twenty fused nations threatening to break apart. The US unified this way and the over mess is much of a way for local to hoard their power, rip-off outsiders, etc.