7 ms·

I love the United States' flexible decentralized model. Different states have sufficient autonomy to tinker and try different approaches, allowing the best idea

I love the United States' flexible decentralized model. Different states have sufficient autonomy to tinker and try different approaches, allowing the best ideas to emerge from the collective. It's one reason why the US is such a dynamic place, similar to Europe but with the additional benefit of unified language, culture (broadly), economy, and high level regulations. It's truly a great system.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wahern 6y ago
It's not necessarily as flexible as to encompass such sub-federal cooperation: "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." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Compact_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat... I'm curious if these recently announced state pacts will be challenged in court. But legal or illegal, it doesn't excuse the poor job of federal management.
- codys 6y ago
  Yes, I'm curious about the way they're intending to handling this legally as well. A bit of searching shows a Supreme Court case Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893) [1]. This restricts the application of that clause somewhat, but it isn't 100% clear to me that this Pact is a perfect match for the facts in that case. It also sounds like [2] things are rather flexible in what approval is and when it is obtained. It's plausible that they expect to ask for approval, or rely on it being unlikely that congress explicitly disapproves, or perhaps they expect to obtain approval in the future. [note: I've linked to a point in the opinion discussing Congressional approval] 1: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10388199763957366456&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p519 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=103881997639573... 2: https://www.gsgp.org/media/1313/understanding_interstate_compacts-csgncic.pdf https://www.gsgp.org/media/1313/understanding_interstate_com...
  - winter_blue 6y ago
    Yep, that Supreme Court decision severely limits the need to get congressional consent to form interstate compacts. It would be wonderful if all the progressive/blue/Democratic states in the country could get together, and form an interstate compact for their mutual benefit and advancement. However it's possible that a Republican-majority Supreme Court, seeing the benefit that's coming out a Democratic interstate compact, could strike it down, with partisan motives (just like they struck down parts of the BCRA with Citizens United, or the Voting Rights Act with Shelby County v. Holder).
    - tathougies 6y ago
      Highly unlikely. Republicans are for state's rights, and the current president and administration seems especially in favor of it. He basically told the states to get their acts together and put the feds into a mainly supportive role, which is as it should be.
      - winter_blue 6y ago
        Republicans might claim to support state's rights, but they certainly aren't principled consistent supporters of it. Just take a drug legalization. Many Republicans have been vehemently opposed to it. Take a look at the Supreme Court decision Gonzalez v. Raich, where Steve Scalia no less, wrote that the feds could interfere with your growing some plants inside your own home for your own personal use. Remember that the "states rights" movement started as a response to federal action to end segregation. In my personal opinion, Republicans are just for whatever will push their agenda forward, without regard to the moral or ethical depravity involved in doing so. Democrats, in contrast, are a bit more principled (in my opinion), especially when it comes to protecting the human rights, civil rights, voting rights, and other rights of the non-dominant groups in this country.
        tathougies 6y ago
        My claim on this issue was mainly due to the current administration's relatively pro-state stance in this regard (COVID). I am not insisting that the GOP is universally pro-state. You are right that they are not when it comes to marijuana legalization and some other things (and shame on them for it).
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  That would prevent any such pact from being legally binding on the states. It doesn't necessarily prevent states from coordinating at all.
  - new_time 6y ago
    Exactly, this seems like an friendly handshake agreement to cooperate with an official name and press release. OTOH, pacts like the popular vote compact signed by some states in the past few years is almost certainly unconstitutional.
    - JoshTriplett 6y ago
      Is it? They're each deciding, independently, to handle their electors in a certain fashion. They each have the right to independently change that decision, without any penalty for doing so. It's not a binding agreement with another state in any fashion.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      > OTOH, pacts like the popular vote compact signed by some states in the past few years is almost certainly unconstitutional. Why would that be the case? Electors are not bound by any particular (federal) rules in how they cast their votes. If we look at the popular vote compact as a friendly handshake agreement (to which electors are not legally bound), they are free to fulfill the handshake agreement and vote along with the national popular vote. Of course, if a signatory decides last-minute to betray that agreement, there perhaps would be no legal remedy.
  - wahern 6y ago
    AFAIU whether the agreement is expressly legally binding is not dispositive. See, e.g., https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-10/clause-3/interstate-compacts https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec.... Thus even if it's likely to pass muster (and I'm sure it was drafted with that in mind) there still could be colorable arguments that permit a legitimate challenge, especially if politically expedient. But I'm not that familiar with this area of law so I welcome corrections accompanied with citations.
- lordgilman 6y ago
  I would imagine this is like the AASHTO or the UCC lobbying groups where the agreements don't force any states to do anything, the states just independently do the same thing together. And in some cases like with the UCC they don't even do that.
- tathougies 6y ago
  States make pacts all the time, without federal congressional oversight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact In Virgina v Tennessee, in 1893, the Supreme Court allows states to make compacts in all matters reserved to the states and the enforcement of which does not encumber federal rights. And for the most part, at the consent of Congress, states keep armies and air forces (and many keep navies) as guaranteed by the second amendment.
  - akiselev 6y ago
    At this point in time though, who's to say the courts won't just let the commerce clause creep in its scope? It'll be pretty easy to argue that these lockdowns interfere with interstate commerce.
- shaftway 6y ago
  > unless actually invaded I mean, Trump is calling himself a "Wartime President"[1]. And the virus technically is on American soil.... [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-wartime-president.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/us/politics/coronavirus-t...
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    His insistence on calling it the "chinese virus" was a very intentional move to frame it as the work of a foreign power, even if he never explicitly said it was made in a chinese laboratory. Plenty of conspiracy theorists did though (some of them on national TV).
- nawgszy 6y ago
  > or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay It'd be nice to think that the largest pandemic of the last century would allow for this, but given the current supreme court bench I guess I wouldn't really bet on it
- jandrewrogers 6y ago
  These kinds of pacts between States to coordinate on specific issues that are under of the umbrella of their sovereignty are quite common and perfectly legal. The whole point of sovereignty is that they have the freedom to deal with the issue as they wish as long as it doesn't abrogate one of the narrow powers delegated to the Federal government, such as this case. There are even pacts between States to coordinate action directly against Federal policy e.g. the Sagebrush Rebellion. In other cases where the Federal government does have jurisdiction, such as interstate treaties regarding shared resource rights, the Federal government can delegate the issue to a group of affected States to sort out amongst themselves e.g. the Colorado River Compact of 1922.
pascalxus 6y ago
In this case it works well. In other areas...
- new_time 6y ago
  In any sufficiently high dimensional system with resource constraints it's inevitable there will be tradeoffs. Or more simply, no system is perfect.
CodeCube 6y ago
Yeah ... it's a great system unless you live in a part of the country that is not trying a smart approach; a place where "best ideas" are routinely dismissed as partisan politics.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Is it, though? Run your states the way you want to. Maybe your comrades in Texas prefer a running economy to lives. This is a good thing that you can make that choice.
- tyre 6y ago
  I don’t see how not having states would change that. We have a federal government that has the power to take action. Republicans are stopping that from happening and so some states are choosing to fix it for themselves. You get what you vote for.
zw123456 6y ago
It is a great system, but our founding fathers encouraged us to continually tinker with it :) It is never perfect. Remember, they were rebels !
yongjik 6y ago
Err... you know, these states are taking about autonomy because the United States now has one third of the world's COVID19 patients...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wahern 6y ago

It's not necessarily as flexible as to encompass such sub-federal cooperation: "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." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Compact_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat... I'm curious if these recently announced state pacts will be challenged in court. But legal or illegal, it doesn't excuse the poor job of federal management.

codys 6y ago
Yes, I'm curious about the way they're intending to handling this legally as well. A bit of searching shows a Supreme Court case Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893) [1]. This restricts the application of that clause somewhat, but it isn't 100% clear to me that this Pact is a perfect match for the facts in that case. It also sounds like [2] things are rather flexible in what approval is and when it is obtained. It's plausible that they expect to ask for approval, or rely on it being unlikely that congress explicitly disapproves, or perhaps they expect to obtain approval in the future. [note: I've linked to a point in the opinion discussing Congressional approval] 1: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10388199763957366456&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p519 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=103881997639573... 2: https://www.gsgp.org/media/1313/understanding_interstate_compacts-csgncic.pdf https://www.gsgp.org/media/1313/understanding_interstate_com...
- winter_blue 6y ago
  Yep, that Supreme Court decision severely limits the need to get congressional consent to form interstate compacts. It would be wonderful if all the progressive/blue/Democratic states in the country could get together, and form an interstate compact for their mutual benefit and advancement. However it's possible that a Republican-majority Supreme Court, seeing the benefit that's coming out a Democratic interstate compact, could strike it down, with partisan motives (just like they struck down parts of the BCRA with Citizens United, or the Voting Rights Act with Shelby County v. Holder).
  - tathougies 6y ago
    Highly unlikely. Republicans are for state's rights, and the current president and administration seems especially in favor of it. He basically told the states to get their acts together and put the feds into a mainly supportive role, which is as it should be.
    - winter_blue 6y ago
      Republicans might claim to support state's rights, but they certainly aren't principled consistent supporters of it. Just take a drug legalization. Many Republicans have been vehemently opposed to it. Take a look at the Supreme Court decision Gonzalez v. Raich, where Steve Scalia no less, wrote that the feds could interfere with your growing some plants inside your own home for your own personal use. Remember that the "states rights" movement started as a response to federal action to end segregation. In my personal opinion, Republicans are just for whatever will push their agenda forward, without regard to the moral or ethical depravity involved in doing so. Democrats, in contrast, are a bit more principled (in my opinion), especially when it comes to protecting the human rights, civil rights, voting rights, and other rights of the non-dominant groups in this country.
      - tathougies 6y ago
        My claim on this issue was mainly due to the current administration's relatively pro-state stance in this regard (COVID). I am not insisting that the GOP is universally pro-state. You are right that they are not when it comes to marijuana legalization and some other things (and shame on them for it).
JoshTriplett 6y ago
That would prevent any such pact from being legally binding on the states. It doesn't necessarily prevent states from coordinating at all.
- new_time 6y ago
  Exactly, this seems like an friendly handshake agreement to cooperate with an official name and press release. OTOH, pacts like the popular vote compact signed by some states in the past few years is almost certainly unconstitutional.
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    Is it? They're each deciding, independently, to handle their electors in a certain fashion. They each have the right to independently change that decision, without any penalty for doing so. It's not a binding agreement with another state in any fashion.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    > OTOH, pacts like the popular vote compact signed by some states in the past few years is almost certainly unconstitutional. Why would that be the case? Electors are not bound by any particular (federal) rules in how they cast their votes. If we look at the popular vote compact as a friendly handshake agreement (to which electors are not legally bound), they are free to fulfill the handshake agreement and vote along with the national popular vote. Of course, if a signatory decides last-minute to betray that agreement, there perhaps would be no legal remedy.
- wahern 6y ago
  AFAIU whether the agreement is expressly legally binding is not dispositive. See, e.g., https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-10/clause-3/interstate-compacts https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec.... Thus even if it's likely to pass muster (and I'm sure it was drafted with that in mind) there still could be colorable arguments that permit a legitimate challenge, especially if politically expedient. But I'm not that familiar with this area of law so I welcome corrections accompanied with citations.
lordgilman 6y ago
I would imagine this is like the AASHTO or the UCC lobbying groups where the agreements don't force any states to do anything, the states just independently do the same thing together. And in some cases like with the UCC they don't even do that.
tathougies 6y ago
States make pacts all the time, without federal congressional oversight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact In Virgina v Tennessee, in 1893, the Supreme Court allows states to make compacts in all matters reserved to the states and the enforcement of which does not encumber federal rights. And for the most part, at the consent of Congress, states keep armies and air forces (and many keep navies) as guaranteed by the second amendment.
- akiselev 6y ago
  At this point in time though, who's to say the courts won't just let the commerce clause creep in its scope? It'll be pretty easy to argue that these lockdowns interfere with interstate commerce.
shaftway 6y ago
> unless actually invaded I mean, Trump is calling himself a "Wartime President"[1]. And the virus technically is on American soil.... [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-wartime-president.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/us/politics/coronavirus-t...
- kevingadd 6y ago
  His insistence on calling it the "chinese virus" was a very intentional move to frame it as the work of a foreign power, even if he never explicitly said it was made in a chinese laboratory. Plenty of conspiracy theorists did though (some of them on national TV).
nawgszy 6y ago
> or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay It'd be nice to think that the largest pandemic of the last century would allow for this, but given the current supreme court bench I guess I wouldn't really bet on it
jandrewrogers 6y ago
These kinds of pacts between States to coordinate on specific issues that are under of the umbrella of their sovereignty are quite common and perfectly legal. The whole point of sovereignty is that they have the freedom to deal with the issue as they wish as long as it doesn't abrogate one of the narrow powers delegated to the Federal government, such as this case. There are even pacts between States to coordinate action directly against Federal policy e.g. the Sagebrush Rebellion. In other cases where the Federal government does have jurisdiction, such as interstate treaties regarding shared resource rights, the Federal government can delegate the issue to a group of affected States to sort out amongst themselves e.g. the Colorado River Compact of 1922.

pascalxus 6y ago

In this case it works well. In other areas...

new_time 6y ago
In any sufficiently high dimensional system with resource constraints it's inevitable there will be tradeoffs. Or more simply, no system is perfect.

CodeCube 6y ago

Yeah ... it's a great system unless you live in a part of the country that is not trying a smart approach; a place where "best ideas" are routinely dismissed as partisan politics.

renewiltord 6y ago
Is it, though? Run your states the way you want to. Maybe your comrades in Texas prefer a running economy to lives. This is a good thing that you can make that choice.
tyre 6y ago
I don’t see how not having states would change that. We have a federal government that has the power to take action. Republicans are stopping that from happening and so some states are choosing to fix it for themselves. You get what you vote for.

zw123456 6y ago

It is a great system, but our founding fathers encouraged us to continually tinker with it :) It is never perfect. Remember, they were rebels !

yongjik 6y ago

Err... you know, these states are taking about autonomy because the United States now has one third of the world's COVID19 patients...