5 ms·

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.

by 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).
      - codys 6y ago
        The current administration's position isn't relatively pro-state here though: Trump is on record insisting he can "reopen" the economy over the heads of state governments. The position on "closing down" (that it was up to states) doesn't tell us anything about the administration's principle in regard to COVID because the administration is willing to change those "principles" very quickly, as evidenced by their current statements (among other actions taken by Republicans) It's arguable that the position on closing down was based on the desire of the admin that the country remain "open", but was faced with legal/political difficulties in directly applying their desire to the country as a whole. What ever tactic is taken with respect to this Pact, we should be unsurprised if it ignores any "principles" and instead looks to effect the policy that Trump desires to put into place, or the effect on Trump's perception of his authority.

by codys 6y ago

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).
    - codys 6y ago
      The current administration's position isn't relatively pro-state here though: Trump is on record insisting he can "reopen" the economy over the heads of state governments. The position on "closing down" (that it was up to states) doesn't tell us anything about the administration's principle in regard to COVID because the administration is willing to change those "principles" very quickly, as evidenced by their current statements (among other actions taken by Republicans) It's arguable that the position on closing down was based on the desire of the admin that the country remain "open", but was faced with legal/political difficulties in directly applying their desire to the country as a whole. What ever tactic is taken with respect to this Pact, we should be unsurprised if it ignores any "principles" and instead looks to effect the policy that Trump desires to put into place, or the effect on Trump's perception of his authority.