4 ms·

> 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 19t

> 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.
- pm90 8y ago
  They're not the same though. Even though Americans consider their state identities to be strong and unique, if you look at how states are generally organized in the old world, its generally by ethnicity, language or some other very strong form of strong shared identity. So while a person from California and Texas might be very different, the difference is likely much smaller than b/w a French person and a German person (although of course this varies). There is also the very strong belief in, and the common acceptance of, American identity as being the more defining identity, whereas not so much in the EU.
  - lsc 8y ago
    >if you look at how states are generally organized in the old world, its generally by ethnicity, language or some other very strong form of strong shared identity. While true, it is important to remember that this is a 19th/20th century type thing. Germany became unified around cultural/ethnic lines in 1871 (in France! so much of world war one was about the fallout from the wars of german unification, just like so much of the wars of german unification were fallout from the Napoleonic wars.) Italy became unified around cultural/ethnic lines in like 1860. Before this, the individual "german" states were not politically unified in any sort of way; they all belonged to whatever multi-ethnic empire invaded them last, and they were more likely to war with oneanother than, say, with France. My point here is that ethnic nationalism looks like the old-world default today, but this is a fairly recent thing.
    - quanticle 8y ago
      I would also point out that, in the US, the idea that American identity trumps state identity is something that really only came into its own after the Civil War. When the Civil War broke out, a large number of the United States' senior officers chose to put state identity ahead of national identity and fight with the Confederate States of America, knowing full well that doing so would cause them to break their vow to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
huehehue 8y ago
Within the bounds of federal law but still quite different. Guns, marijuana, open containers (alcohol), driving (80mph is reckless driving in VA, but totally legal elsewhere), abortion, and more all vary by state. I've even heard of state border checks in the southwest (mostly "papers please" immigrant checks...). Still not nearly as tight-knit as one would think.

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.
pm90 8y ago
They're not the same though. Even though Americans consider their state identities to be strong and unique, if you look at how states are generally organized in the old world, its generally by ethnicity, language or some other very strong form of strong shared identity. So while a person from California and Texas might be very different, the difference is likely much smaller than b/w a French person and a German person (although of course this varies). There is also the very strong belief in, and the common acceptance of, American identity as being the more defining identity, whereas not so much in the EU.
- lsc 8y ago
  >if you look at how states are generally organized in the old world, its generally by ethnicity, language or some other very strong form of strong shared identity. While true, it is important to remember that this is a 19th/20th century type thing. Germany became unified around cultural/ethnic lines in 1871 (in France! so much of world war one was about the fallout from the wars of german unification, just like so much of the wars of german unification were fallout from the Napoleonic wars.) Italy became unified around cultural/ethnic lines in like 1860. Before this, the individual "german" states were not politically unified in any sort of way; they all belonged to whatever multi-ethnic empire invaded them last, and they were more likely to war with oneanother than, say, with France. My point here is that ethnic nationalism looks like the old-world default today, but this is a fairly recent thing.
  - quanticle 8y ago
    I would also point out that, in the US, the idea that American identity trumps state identity is something that really only came into its own after the Civil War. When the Civil War broke out, a large number of the United States' senior officers chose to put state identity ahead of national identity and fight with the Confederate States of America, knowing full well that doing so would cause them to break their vow to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

huehehue 8y ago

Within the bounds of federal law but still quite different. Guns, marijuana, open containers (alcohol), driving (80mph is reckless driving in VA, but totally legal elsewhere), abortion, and more all vary by state. I've even heard of state border checks in the southwest (mostly "papers please" immigrant checks...). Still not nearly as tight-knit as one would think.