3 ms·
> Compare this to the government of a state, which does not have the right to violate its own law. States [of the USA] selectively comply with federal law all
by teachingassist 6y ago
> Compare this to the government of a state, which does not have the right to violate its own law.
States [of the USA] selectively comply with federal law all the time - an obvious example is Colorado legalising marijuana.
You seem to think it's reasonable that there is some oversight body for federal law, so why not an oversight body for international law? Why would you consider it 'good' that there's no consequence for Brazil, up to the point of all-out war?
- slibhb 6y ago> You seem to think it's reasonable that there is some oversight body for federal law, so why not an oversight body for international law? Because such a body would require a world government, no such government exists, and its existence would be a bad thing.
- leetcrew 6y ago> States [of the USA] selectively comply with federal law all the time - an obvious example is Colorado legalising marijuana. states can play this game in limited circumstances where the federal government makes only a half-hearted effort at enforcement. if the national opinion were more united against recreational marijuana, there are plenty of ways the federal government could force colorado to comply (eg, withholding highway funds).
- rtkwe 6y agoOr just raiding every grower and dispensary in the state constantly. Recreational and medical marijuana exist entirely because the federal government has decided to not enforce the law on it and allow states to set up regulations on it.
- dahfizz 6y agoThis is how federalism works. The federal government could step in and force all states to do something, but in many cases allows the states to self-govern.
- teachingassist 6y agoCool. My point is that a federal world government would or could work the same. (The federal government can't force all states to do something because 1. the federal government's force is limited by its powers, and 2. the states together have powers to overrule the federal government)
- tastyfreeze 6y agoStepping in would force the issue of the federal government's tenous claim of authority to regulate intrastate commerce. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of federal authority over intrastate commerce in the past but it is not a Constitutionally granted power.
- notdonspaulding 6y agoArticle I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reads (emphasis mine): The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ...
- tastyfreeze 6y agoNone of those words give authority to regulate commerce within a state. Among means between not within. The past Supreme court rulings claimed that intrastate commerce that affected levels of interstate commerce was under federal authority. See Wickard v. Filburn
- notdonspaulding 6y agoMea culpa! I read right over the words you wrote because I'm so used to the phrase interstate commerce and not at all used to seeing intrastate commerce. I wasn't trying to use Article I to argue that the federal government had any right to regulate INTRAstate commerce. Sorry about the mixup. So, now your original point makes much more sense, and I completely agree with you. Thanks for taking the time to reply.