4 ms·

You know who else has the power to lead people and states? The federal government. Almost like they were empowered specifically for this kind of scenario.

nefitty 6y ago
I started thinking about this when thinking of the United Nations. If the UN had become what it could have, we would have some sort of federal world system that could tackle things like climate change, etc. This same thing occurs at different levels. The US federal government is in the best position to enforce regulations that require collective state action, like pandemic response. If they’re not solving the problems they’re uniquely in a position to solve, then what’s the point of federal taxes?
clairity 6y ago
no, the federal government exists to defend the interests of the states, and resolve disputes between them. it's not meant to be a higher level of authority.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > no, the federal government exists to defend the interests of the states, and resolve disputes between them. Clearly, yes. > it's not meant to be a higher level of authority. The Supremacy Clause fairly explicitly disagrees.
  - clairity 6y ago
    yes, but the supremacy clause applies only to laws written within its (federal) jurisdiction, as enumerated in the constitution (and amendments). the battle there, of course, is how much jurisdiction can be finagled under the interstate commerce clause and the like.
    - nwallin 6y ago
      In your opinion, has COVID-19 had any effect on interstate commerce? Or is interstate commerce the same as it was this time last year?
      - clairity 6y ago
        all commerce, including the interstate kind, has slowed down due to the pandemic response, but that certainly doesn't mean that the interstate commerce clause should be invoked for covid (or in many other cases that it has been employed by the federal gov't). that power should be reserved for things like collusive, coercive, and anti-competitive behavior, its intended purpose. for epidemiological concerns, the public health services act is the relevant federal legal framework, as @dragonwriter mentioned elsewhere. however, a national mask mandate is a political ploy unlikely to lower infection rates materially vs. less visible and harder-to-enforce mitigations. it's polarized pangeantry, being pushed to put some points on the political board and coalesce power. anyone who cares about getting past the pandemic should punish such ineffective partisan behavior in favor of real meaningful, targeted, and effective measures--start with focusing on private social gatherings, the primary vector of spread (and completely unrelated to interstate commerce), not meaningless public displays of compliance.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > all commerce, including the interstate kind, has slowed down due to the pandemic response, but that certainly doesn't mean that the interstate commerce clause should be invoked for covid (or in many other cases that it has been employed by the federal gov't). that power should be reserved for things like collusive, coercive, and anti-competitive behavior, its intended purpose. > for epidemiological concerns, the public health services act is the relevant federal legal framework, as @dragonwriter mentioned elsewhere. The Public Health Services Act is almost entirely an exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. (Some bits of it may be grounded elsewhere, but that is the main source of authority for the Act.) You can't really say it's the right statutory authority and say that the Commerce Clause should not be invoked in this context.

nefitty 6y ago

I started thinking about this when thinking of the United Nations. If the UN had become what it could have, we would have some sort of federal world system that could tackle things like climate change, etc. This same thing occurs at different levels. The US federal government is in the best position to enforce regulations that require collective state action, like pandemic response. If they’re not solving the problems they’re uniquely in a position to solve, then what’s the point of federal taxes?

clairity 6y ago

no, the federal government exists to defend the interests of the states, and resolve disputes between them. it's not meant to be a higher level of authority.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> no, the federal government exists to defend the interests of the states, and resolve disputes between them. Clearly, yes. > it's not meant to be a higher level of authority. The Supremacy Clause fairly explicitly disagrees.
- clairity 6y ago
  yes, but the supremacy clause applies only to laws written within its (federal) jurisdiction, as enumerated in the constitution (and amendments). the battle there, of course, is how much jurisdiction can be finagled under the interstate commerce clause and the like.
  - nwallin 6y ago
    In your opinion, has COVID-19 had any effect on interstate commerce? Or is interstate commerce the same as it was this time last year?
    - clairity 6y ago
      all commerce, including the interstate kind, has slowed down due to the pandemic response, but that certainly doesn't mean that the interstate commerce clause should be invoked for covid (or in many other cases that it has been employed by the federal gov't). that power should be reserved for things like collusive, coercive, and anti-competitive behavior, its intended purpose. for epidemiological concerns, the public health services act is the relevant federal legal framework, as @dragonwriter mentioned elsewhere. however, a national mask mandate is a political ploy unlikely to lower infection rates materially vs. less visible and harder-to-enforce mitigations. it's polarized pangeantry, being pushed to put some points on the political board and coalesce power. anyone who cares about getting past the pandemic should punish such ineffective partisan behavior in favor of real meaningful, targeted, and effective measures--start with focusing on private social gatherings, the primary vector of spread (and completely unrelated to interstate commerce), not meaningless public displays of compliance.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > all commerce, including the interstate kind, has slowed down due to the pandemic response, but that certainly doesn't mean that the interstate commerce clause should be invoked for covid (or in many other cases that it has been employed by the federal gov't). that power should be reserved for things like collusive, coercive, and anti-competitive behavior, its intended purpose. > for epidemiological concerns, the public health services act is the relevant federal legal framework, as @dragonwriter mentioned elsewhere. The Public Health Services Act is almost entirely an exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. (Some bits of it may be grounded elsewhere, but that is the main source of authority for the Act.) You can't really say it's the right statutory authority and say that the Commerce Clause should not be invoked in this context.