8 ms·

The Federal government does not have the authority, it is expressly prohibited. What you think “should” have happened is literally impossible without dissolutio

The Federal government does not have the authority, it is expressly prohibited. What you think “should” have happened is literally impossible without dissolution of the US government. This is not remotely controversial, the Supreme Court has visited this many times. States are sovereign and autonomous entities for this purpose, same as for most things. A surprisingly small number of Americans have any understanding of the structure of our government, a glaring failure of our education systems. It is no wonder that foreigners have so many misconceptions about the nature of US government given how few Americans understand it.

blhack 7y ago
It's a failure of our eduction system, but it's also a complete failure of traditional media. My guess is that it is because most major traditional media outlets are national entities. It's easier for those national media entities to talk about a government that appears relevant to their entire audience (the federal government), instead of 50+ articles each scoped at the state level. This damages peoples' ability to do correct sensemaking because they overweighting entertainment sources as if they were data sources.
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Germany also has a strict Federal structure, but they managed. They called a meeting of all the state governments, together with the Federal government, and agreed on a set of procedures. Each state does things a bit differently, but they're largely on the same page now. Why wasn't anything like this attempted in the US?
- jandrewrogers 7y ago
  The US Federal government is similar to the EU; member States have considerable amounts of absolute sovereignty, their own forms of government, and their own legal systems. Importantly, the Federal government cannot operate in a State except with consent of the State, which is withheld in numerous instances. The Federal government works for the States, not the other way around, and the States are free to ignore requests by the Federal government on most matters. Why wasn't the response coordinated across the EU? Same answer applies to the US. It would be like herding cats. The Federal government can ask nicely but no one is required to listen Externally, the US presents a common negotiating front. Internally, it is 50+ separate countries. Americans interact almost exclusively with their State governments when in the country, not the Federal government. This explains, for example, why there is no "national" ID in the US. Americans are citizens of their States, first and foremost, and each State has their own independent ID systems. What makes the US somewhat unique is that Americans have an absolute right to change their citizenship among the member States at any time. There was a time not that long ago when many Americans more closely identified with their State citizenship than their Federal citizenship.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    The EU is not at all comparable to the United States. The US is most certainly not composed of 50 sovereign countries, and the US has a powerful central government - something the EU almost entirely lacks. A much better comparison is the Federal Republic of Germany, which has a strongly federal constitution, much like the United States. The Federal government in Germany has very little formal ability to impose quarantine measures on the states, but it effectively managed to do so. The Federal government called a meeting with all of the state governments, which are individually run by different, competing political parties, and managed to have all the states agree to take a similar set of measures. The Federal government in the United States could have done the same, but chose not to. The political reason for that inaction is clear. The President's #1 priority is the economy and, specifically, the stock market. He doesn't like the idea of quarantine measures, because of their impact on the economy. He spent two months downplaying the virus, and has now shifted to blaming the WHO for his own government's failure to contain the outbreak. > There was a time not that long ago when many Americans more closely identified with their State citizenship than their Federal citizenship. That time was over 150 years ago.
    - jandrewrogers 7y ago
      That is a strange but understandable misunderstanding of the relationship between the Federal government and the States in the US, it is not remotely like Germany. German states are much weaker both in theory and practice. The Federal government often cannot intervene unless the States ask them to, and the States control the terms of that intervention. People raise this issue in every major natural disaster under every administration, baffled why the Federal government doesn’t do more, oblivious to the legal and practical structure of the US government. In my own lifetime there have been many cases where States actively restrict Federal operations within their jurisdiction, with full support of the Federal courts. By convention, the States typically allow the Federal government to operate freely within their jurisdiction, but it is not an obligation as it is strictly at the pleasure of the State. When there are strong disagreements between the Federal and State governments, this is a major point of leverage. Many Federal programs have been successfully killed by States prohibiting Federal operation in their States.
quickthrowman 7y ago
It has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with Republican governors being scared to act without Trump’s approval since they’re scared of losing their power. All Trump had to do was recommend stay-at-home orders be implemented by the states and it would’ve happened. You saw it with Florida and Georgia, and the Georgia governor had the nerve to claim he didn’t know there was asymptomatic spread. This is not a legal issue, it’s a political one.
three_seagrass 7y ago
"Enacting" stay at home measures are as simple as recommending them or working with states to set a standard set of measure, which did not happen. Instead, the focus was on keeping people working for the economy. You're too quick to interpret something illegal just so you can jump on the complaining-about-education band wagon.

blhack 7y ago

It's a failure of our eduction system, but it's also a complete failure of traditional media. My guess is that it is because most major traditional media outlets are national entities. It's easier for those national media entities to talk about a government that appears relevant to their entire audience (the federal government), instead of 50+ articles each scoped at the state level. This damages peoples' ability to do correct sensemaking because they overweighting entertainment sources as if they were data sources.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

Germany also has a strict Federal structure, but they managed. They called a meeting of all the state governments, together with the Federal government, and agreed on a set of procedures. Each state does things a bit differently, but they're largely on the same page now. Why wasn't anything like this attempted in the US?

jandrewrogers 7y ago
The US Federal government is similar to the EU; member States have considerable amounts of absolute sovereignty, their own forms of government, and their own legal systems. Importantly, the Federal government cannot operate in a State except with consent of the State, which is withheld in numerous instances. The Federal government works for the States, not the other way around, and the States are free to ignore requests by the Federal government on most matters. Why wasn't the response coordinated across the EU? Same answer applies to the US. It would be like herding cats. The Federal government can ask nicely but no one is required to listen Externally, the US presents a common negotiating front. Internally, it is 50+ separate countries. Americans interact almost exclusively with their State governments when in the country, not the Federal government. This explains, for example, why there is no "national" ID in the US. Americans are citizens of their States, first and foremost, and each State has their own independent ID systems. What makes the US somewhat unique is that Americans have an absolute right to change their citizenship among the member States at any time. There was a time not that long ago when many Americans more closely identified with their State citizenship than their Federal citizenship.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  The EU is not at all comparable to the United States. The US is most certainly not composed of 50 sovereign countries, and the US has a powerful central government - something the EU almost entirely lacks. A much better comparison is the Federal Republic of Germany, which has a strongly federal constitution, much like the United States. The Federal government in Germany has very little formal ability to impose quarantine measures on the states, but it effectively managed to do so. The Federal government called a meeting with all of the state governments, which are individually run by different, competing political parties, and managed to have all the states agree to take a similar set of measures. The Federal government in the United States could have done the same, but chose not to. The political reason for that inaction is clear. The President's #1 priority is the economy and, specifically, the stock market. He doesn't like the idea of quarantine measures, because of their impact on the economy. He spent two months downplaying the virus, and has now shifted to blaming the WHO for his own government's failure to contain the outbreak. > There was a time not that long ago when many Americans more closely identified with their State citizenship than their Federal citizenship. That time was over 150 years ago.
  - jandrewrogers 7y ago
    That is a strange but understandable misunderstanding of the relationship between the Federal government and the States in the US, it is not remotely like Germany. German states are much weaker both in theory and practice. The Federal government often cannot intervene unless the States ask them to, and the States control the terms of that intervention. People raise this issue in every major natural disaster under every administration, baffled why the Federal government doesn’t do more, oblivious to the legal and practical structure of the US government. In my own lifetime there have been many cases where States actively restrict Federal operations within their jurisdiction, with full support of the Federal courts. By convention, the States typically allow the Federal government to operate freely within their jurisdiction, but it is not an obligation as it is strictly at the pleasure of the State. When there are strong disagreements between the Federal and State governments, this is a major point of leverage. Many Federal programs have been successfully killed by States prohibiting Federal operation in their States.

quickthrowman 7y ago

It has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with Republican governors being scared to act without Trump’s approval since they’re scared of losing their power. All Trump had to do was recommend stay-at-home orders be implemented by the states and it would’ve happened. You saw it with Florida and Georgia, and the Georgia governor had the nerve to claim he didn’t know there was asymptomatic spread. This is not a legal issue, it’s a political one.

three_seagrass 7y ago

"Enacting" stay at home measures are as simple as recommending them or working with states to set a standard set of measure, which did not happen. Instead, the focus was on keeping people working for the economy. You're too quick to interpret something illegal just so you can jump on the complaining-about-education band wagon.