4 ms·

Interesting, maybe I'm misunderstanding it but my thought process was basically that yes, a company gets the same amount of authority that a county government g

Interesting, maybe I'm misunderstanding it but my thought process was basically that yes, a company gets the same amount of authority that a county government gets but where I disagree is where you say this is authority the feds never had. I think the feds would see it as they've essentially granted (or bargained) with the state so they can have this authority, I'm not sure they'd see it as within the state's purview to unilaterally grant it to another. My disagreement isn't that it'd defeat the purpose of it being a charter city, if the feds don't allow it it would indeed defeat the purpose. My point is that my immediate concern is that this draft bill may be challenged in court by somebody (name a government, tribal group, nonprofit, or NIMBY cohort) on the grounds that the state doesn't have that authority to grant these rights and that it should rest with the feds.

clairity 6y ago
under what jurisdiction do you believe the fed has that power? it's not an overarching government that gives power to the states, but rather the states, as canonical units of power, that cede power to the fed for mutual benefit of the collective states. the fed doesn't own/control all the (unincorporated) land, the states do. the fed may try to use it's limited delegated powers (like the interstate commerce clause) to shape things on the margins, but it doesn't have direct jurisdiction on this matter.
- atlasunshrugged 6y ago
  I have no idea under what jurisdiction the fed has that power, I have very little US government experience and IANAL. But my impression is that the federal government oscillates between being more and less involved in state's affairs over time and administrations, and that when considering novel (or semi-novel since the practice of allocating jurisdiction to companies seems to have been done elsewhere - ex. Florida & Disney) legislation it should be a serious consideration that the federal government would be interested in getting involved, especially in a contentious issue like this very likely will be and that new precedent and rulings can always be set depending on who is in power (legislatively or in the courts).
  - clairity 6y ago
    yes, (national) politicians will want to get involved (under the assumption that any publicity is good publicity), but that doesn't mean they can do much directly other than yak about it in the media.
kelnos 6y ago
That's not how the US constitution works, though. Any power not specifically granted to the federal government is explicitly reserved to the states and its people. In practice this ends up being more of a muddy issue than I'd like it to be (cough interstate commerce clause cough), but in principle, that's the law of the land. But it does seem that this proposal isn't really the same as what we'd think of as a charter city/county. I don't think the state would be giving the corporation carte blanche to write its own independent legal system; they're still subject and subordinate to federal and state law. The only expressly weird thing about this from a government perspective is that the county would be run by a supervisory board that the corporation entirely controls (as in, the company wouldn't have to hold elections for those positions). Still, that's a very big difference and I'm very much against this whole idea.

clairity 6y ago

under what jurisdiction do you believe the fed has that power? it's not an overarching government that gives power to the states, but rather the states, as canonical units of power, that cede power to the fed for mutual benefit of the collective states. the fed doesn't own/control all the (unincorporated) land, the states do. the fed may try to use it's limited delegated powers (like the interstate commerce clause) to shape things on the margins, but it doesn't have direct jurisdiction on this matter.

atlasunshrugged 6y ago
I have no idea under what jurisdiction the fed has that power, I have very little US government experience and IANAL. But my impression is that the federal government oscillates between being more and less involved in state's affairs over time and administrations, and that when considering novel (or semi-novel since the practice of allocating jurisdiction to companies seems to have been done elsewhere - ex. Florida & Disney) legislation it should be a serious consideration that the federal government would be interested in getting involved, especially in a contentious issue like this very likely will be and that new precedent and rulings can always be set depending on who is in power (legislatively or in the courts).
- clairity 6y ago
  yes, (national) politicians will want to get involved (under the assumption that any publicity is good publicity), but that doesn't mean they can do much directly other than yak about it in the media.

kelnos 6y ago

That's not how the US constitution works, though. Any power not specifically granted to the federal government is explicitly reserved to the states and its people. In practice this ends up being more of a muddy issue than I'd like it to be (cough interstate commerce clause cough), but in principle, that's the law of the land. But it does seem that this proposal isn't really the same as what we'd think of as a charter city/county. I don't think the state would be giving the corporation carte blanche to write its own independent legal system; they're still subject and subordinate to federal and state law. The only expressly weird thing about this from a government perspective is that the county would be run by a supervisory board that the corporation entirely controls (as in, the company wouldn't have to hold elections for those positions). Still, that's a very big difference and I'm very much against this whole idea.