5 ms·

If the Supreme Court lets the Texas law stand then I think inevitably the country will break apart. There’s a good chance of that happening regardless but allow

by syki 5y ago

If the Supreme Court lets the Texas law stand then I think inevitably the country will break apart. There’s a good chance of that happening regardless but allowing each state to effectively usurp what so far is considered a right negates the concept of federalism. That the Supreme Court did not immediately strike down the Texas law means that in the near future left leaning people will start advocating for states rights as Congress ends up moving to the right. The idea is now out there: each state can impose its own views on what are rights without it being immediately struck down. The divide widens.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
golemotron 5y ago
It's reversion to the mean. The Bill of Rights was put in place to forbid the federal government from infringing on rights, since the states were sovereign already and could make their own decisions via democratic process. It's not a negation of federalism, it's a resurrection.
- annoyingnoob 5y ago
  What about the Bill of Rights allows States to infringe rights but not the 'federal government'? Your statement makes it sound like the Bill of Rights does not also apply to State governments, and it does. In your view, there are no inalienable rights and as long as a State has a democratic process then the State can dictate whatever it wants for your life.
  - Majromax 5y ago
    > What about the Bill of Rights allows States to infringe rights but not the 'federal government'? The grandparent poster is arguing against the doctrine of incorporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...). Prior to the Civil War, the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were read to apply specifically against the federal government. However, the thirteenth amendment (banning slavery) explicitly overrides state jurisdiction. The fourteenth amendment guarantees due process and equal protection of the law, and this is the usual route by which the other rights guaranteed under the Constitution have been extended to apply against state law. In recent decades, this question has been settled so thoroughly that an anti-incorporation stance is a radical reinterpretation of the relationship between the federal and state governments.
    - golemotron 5y ago
      > In recent decades, this question has been settled so thoroughly that an anti-incorporation stance is a radical reinterpretation of the relationship between the federal and state governments. And here we are. Many of the things we see as status quo were originally radical changes. If this tendency toward decentralization persists over the next 50 years a move back toward centrality will be considered radical too.
      - annoyingnoob 5y ago
        Do you recognize any inalienable rights? If so, what are some?
        golemotron 5y ago
        There are many rights that I like and want, but the word inalienable is tricky. Governments take away rights all the time. Inalienable is a wish rather than a practical reality. It's good to have many sovereigns so that people can see the effects of different value sets, learn from them, and express preference by moving or attempting to change their corner of the world. It's a pro-choice position, really.
        annoyingnoob 5y ago
        https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Basic human rights are not a wish.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        It's a "declaration", meaning no legal force. It's not a treaty. And worse, there are weasel words and carve outs that basically nullify it if the state deems it appropriate. This is how nations like Cuba can be proud signatories.
        5y ago
- syki 5y ago
  There are federal systems where the federal government has lots of power and federal systems where the federal government has little power. There are unwritten rules and norms when it comes to governance and systems are only as strong as the willingness of people in power to follow those norms. In the U.S. those rules/norms are dissolving. A new equilibrium must be achieved. That equilibrium might end up being states seceding.
mercy_dude 5y ago
I am a bit of a noob when it comes to American legal system and also the following of precedence. So let’s say if a small town in Texas decides x is legal or not legal, does that mean the rest of the country has to follow? Or vice versa? I mean wouldn’t it make more sense to decide a lot of the issues locally as it suits? In that aspect, can someone explain why Supreme Court is even a thing in a functional democracy with representatives making decisions at state/federal levels as appropriate? I can see in a constitutional framework it may be useful to have an unelected body decide to interpret the constitution but other than that it just really looks to me an overreach for unelected individuals to irreversibly decide whether someone I know can have abortion or carry guns
- Majromax 5y ago
  > I am a bit of a noob when it comes to American legal system and also the following of precedence. So let’s say if a small town in Texas decides x is legal or not legal, does that mean the rest of the country has to follow? "Precedent" applies in courts, not in legislatures. A small town may decide that X is legal or illegal, and the validity of that declaration depends on its scope. Speed limits? Go right ahead. Banning religious or ethnic minorities from city limits? Not a chance. Higher levels of government generally override lower levels of government. A state law absolutely wins versus a local resolution, for example. A federal law usually wins over state law, but the federal government has limited jurisdiction over local matters. The federal government can't make it illegal (for example) for a state to teach creationism in public schools, but it can make federal funding contingent on it. That's a carrot rather than a stick. The US constitution sits at the highest level of the hierarchy, and no government may enact laws that conflict with it. This is (mostly) where the Supreme Court comes in. At the moment, a limited right to abortion is constitutionally protected. However, the argument behind the Texas law is that it isn't infringing on the right, it's just allowing people to sue each other about it (whereupon the individual case will need to be heard separately and possibly appealed). Constitutional rights apply against governments, not individual people. The proposed California law would apply this reasoning to firearms, which is another constitutionally-recognized right. From here, you can see why critics of this technique are worried. If it's okay for people to sue each other over the exercise of otherwise-protected rights, then that can frustrate the very existence of those rights. > I can see in a constitutional framework it may be useful to have an unelected body decide to interpret the constitution but other than that it just really looks to me an overreach for unelected individuals to irreversibly decide whether someone I know can have abortion or carry guns That first part of your claim -- an unelected body interpreting the constitution -- is exactly what's happened. The right to carry firearms comes from the second amendment, and the right to abortion derives from the right to privacy that is implied by (and necessary for) the Bill of Rights; the reasoning ultimately comes from Griswold v Connecticut (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut), which held that married people have a right to use contraceptives if they wish.
myfavoritedog 5y ago
what so far is considered a right The left is totally sanguine with the idea of removing the right of self defense, which is one of the most ancient and accepted rights in existence. left leaning people will start advocating for states rights I would rejoice if that were the case. Unfortunately, the left wouldn't be the left if it weren't hell-bent on amplifying the power of the collective. So while the left will attempt some end-run-around moves here and there in the name of "states' rights", they will never truly embrace the concept.
anshumankmr 5y ago
As a non American, I don't understand how exactly can the country break apart when many of your country men have died in a bloody war to preserve the same country. Plus, the fact is the states are stronger together. Sure, they don't align culturally as much but the Federal government steps in to help each state in one way or another (such as how Texas needed help during the crisis it had in the winter despite one of its high ranking officials talking openly about secession a few months before that). Wouldn't deeply entrenched business interests resist this tooth and nail as I am sure many supply chains are interdependent on several states. Besides, wasn't it Ulysses Grant and Abraham Lincoln who believed that preserving the union would save more lives in the end as if there were two countries in the same subcontinent, war would be inevitable over the centuries (in a manner similar to European wars that had been happening for almost a millennia at that point). Don't the leaders realize that simple fact?
- syki 5y ago
  People, cultures, ideas, and norms change over time. Entrenched business interests would be opposed to the dissolution of the union. But an opportunist with the right charisma and comes along and divides people sufficiently then those interests might not be powerful enough to maintain the union.
  - anshumankmr 5y ago
    But the common sense fact should be that if there is dissolution of the Union, peace will never last and the two countries will be in a perpetual war or a cold war. Plus assuming the split is the same as before, minorities will suffer terribly. Back then, it was the slaves who got the worst of it but now America has become a melting pot of all cultures. What will happen to those people? And the allies of America will be left to fend for themselves such as Taiwan, Ukraine, Japan , India etc? Honestly, I presume that common sense will prevail and nothing will change hopefully, such as Roe v Wade not being overturned.
    - syki 5y ago
      In times of ideologically driven divides common sense is one of the first casualties.
ipaddr 5y ago
This is the way the American system works and on the whole it allows different places to have laws that reflect different groups of people. If you waited for federal interests to align weed would still be illegal and probably never get legalized or only much later. Same with Gay marriage. You also have the issue with if the fed is making all of the rules are they going to send money to cover those additional costs or provide the services themselves if they don't it puts poor/rich states on different footings. You would need to look at equalization payments. Canada does a version of equalization but in reality one or two Provinces cover the costs for the rest. If another Province has a good year they lobby to change the formula to exclude that income. How would that work for the US? New York, California basically give 500 million a year to mostly poor red states to pay for services? I can't see that working well.. because if the next group in Washington starts enacting hard right laws (everyone gets a free gun) California has no power to enact different laws and they have to pay for everyone's guns. The other problem is companies would leave California and move to a poor state with better company tax laws and services.
- syki 5y ago
  It’s not how the system has worked for the past 150 years or so. Rights recognized by the Supreme Court have been inviolable as far as I know. I can’t think of an instance in which the Supreme Court said you have the right to X while not immediately striking down a law that effectively violates that right. I’m not a legal scholar so I could be wrong. There are variations amongst the laws of the states but federal laws and federal rights generally take precedence over an individual state’s desires. There are exceptions but generally this is true. Louisiana wanted to have 18 be the legal drinking age but the federal law that tied highway funding to making the legal age 21 effectively killed this desire by Louisiana and Scalia and others on the Supreme Court allowed this happen. It’s all a delicate balancing act between federal interest, states interests, and peoples’ rights. The Court is upsetting the balance that had been achieved and a new equilibrium will occur.
VoodooJuJu 5y ago
In a way, it is a kind of divide, but in a good way. States have always been divided in a variety of ways, not just geographically. State sovereignty was always the original ideal of the U.S. Ideally, the smaller the entity in question, the more sovereign the entity should be. From least to most sovereign: Federal > State > Municipality > Family > Individual In the case of the article and the Texas law, it's Federal vs State, and State should trump the former. This is good because it encourages competition between states and doesn't cause lock-in for families and individuals - much in the same way that any business competes. If Texas laws and values don't jibe with me, I can live in and support another state that does. Same goes for municipality, family, and individual - you can live in a different village, you can sever familial relations and form new ones, you can change your habits, actions, place of employment, etc.
- theklr 5y ago
  If only uprooting was as simple as writing this. I’m all for the ideological implications of this but without the social safety net to be able to do this, it feels another extension of increasing classism.
- syki 5y ago
  You might be able to move to another state but not everyone else can. Your view of how things should work is not feasible or tenable. It would lead to the dissolution of the union.

by syki 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

golemotron 5y ago

It's reversion to the mean. The Bill of Rights was put in place to forbid the federal government from infringing on rights, since the states were sovereign already and could make their own decisions via democratic process. It's not a negation of federalism, it's a resurrection.

annoyingnoob 5y ago
What about the Bill of Rights allows States to infringe rights but not the 'federal government'? Your statement makes it sound like the Bill of Rights does not also apply to State governments, and it does. In your view, there are no inalienable rights and as long as a State has a democratic process then the State can dictate whatever it wants for your life.
- Majromax 5y ago
  > What about the Bill of Rights allows States to infringe rights but not the 'federal government'? The grandparent poster is arguing against the doctrine of incorporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...). Prior to the Civil War, the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were read to apply specifically against the federal government. However, the thirteenth amendment (banning slavery) explicitly overrides state jurisdiction. The fourteenth amendment guarantees due process and equal protection of the law, and this is the usual route by which the other rights guaranteed under the Constitution have been extended to apply against state law. In recent decades, this question has been settled so thoroughly that an anti-incorporation stance is a radical reinterpretation of the relationship between the federal and state governments.
  - golemotron 5y ago
    > In recent decades, this question has been settled so thoroughly that an anti-incorporation stance is a radical reinterpretation of the relationship between the federal and state governments. And here we are. Many of the things we see as status quo were originally radical changes. If this tendency toward decentralization persists over the next 50 years a move back toward centrality will be considered radical too.
    - annoyingnoob 5y ago
      Do you recognize any inalienable rights? If so, what are some?
      - golemotron 5y ago
        There are many rights that I like and want, but the word inalienable is tricky. Governments take away rights all the time. Inalienable is a wish rather than a practical reality. It's good to have many sovereigns so that people can see the effects of different value sets, learn from them, and express preference by moving or attempting to change their corner of the world. It's a pro-choice position, really.
        annoyingnoob 5y ago
        https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Basic human rights are not a wish.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        It's a "declaration", meaning no legal force. It's not a treaty. And worse, there are weasel words and carve outs that basically nullify it if the state deems it appropriate. This is how nations like Cuba can be proud signatories.
        5y ago
syki 5y ago
There are federal systems where the federal government has lots of power and federal systems where the federal government has little power. There are unwritten rules and norms when it comes to governance and systems are only as strong as the willingness of people in power to follow those norms. In the U.S. those rules/norms are dissolving. A new equilibrium must be achieved. That equilibrium might end up being states seceding.

mercy_dude 5y ago

I am a bit of a noob when it comes to American legal system and also the following of precedence. So let’s say if a small town in Texas decides x is legal or not legal, does that mean the rest of the country has to follow? Or vice versa? I mean wouldn’t it make more sense to decide a lot of the issues locally as it suits? In that aspect, can someone explain why Supreme Court is even a thing in a functional democracy with representatives making decisions at state/federal levels as appropriate? I can see in a constitutional framework it may be useful to have an unelected body decide to interpret the constitution but other than that it just really looks to me an overreach for unelected individuals to irreversibly decide whether someone I know can have abortion or carry guns

Majromax 5y ago
> I am a bit of a noob when it comes to American legal system and also the following of precedence. So let’s say if a small town in Texas decides x is legal or not legal, does that mean the rest of the country has to follow? "Precedent" applies in courts, not in legislatures. A small town may decide that X is legal or illegal, and the validity of that declaration depends on its scope. Speed limits? Go right ahead. Banning religious or ethnic minorities from city limits? Not a chance. Higher levels of government generally override lower levels of government. A state law absolutely wins versus a local resolution, for example. A federal law usually wins over state law, but the federal government has limited jurisdiction over local matters. The federal government can't make it illegal (for example) for a state to teach creationism in public schools, but it can make federal funding contingent on it. That's a carrot rather than a stick. The US constitution sits at the highest level of the hierarchy, and no government may enact laws that conflict with it. This is (mostly) where the Supreme Court comes in. At the moment, a limited right to abortion is constitutionally protected. However, the argument behind the Texas law is that it isn't infringing on the right, it's just allowing people to sue each other about it (whereupon the individual case will need to be heard separately and possibly appealed). Constitutional rights apply against governments, not individual people. The proposed California law would apply this reasoning to firearms, which is another constitutionally-recognized right. From here, you can see why critics of this technique are worried. If it's okay for people to sue each other over the exercise of otherwise-protected rights, then that can frustrate the very existence of those rights. > I can see in a constitutional framework it may be useful to have an unelected body decide to interpret the constitution but other than that it just really looks to me an overreach for unelected individuals to irreversibly decide whether someone I know can have abortion or carry guns That first part of your claim -- an unelected body interpreting the constitution -- is exactly what's happened. The right to carry firearms comes from the second amendment, and the right to abortion derives from the right to privacy that is implied by (and necessary for) the Bill of Rights; the reasoning ultimately comes from Griswold v Connecticut (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut), which held that married people have a right to use contraceptives if they wish.

myfavoritedog 5y ago

what so far is considered a right The left is totally sanguine with the idea of removing the right of self defense, which is one of the most ancient and accepted rights in existence. left leaning people will start advocating for states rights I would rejoice if that were the case. Unfortunately, the left wouldn't be the left if it weren't hell-bent on amplifying the power of the collective. So while the left will attempt some end-run-around moves here and there in the name of "states' rights", they will never truly embrace the concept.

anshumankmr 5y ago

As a non American, I don't understand how exactly can the country break apart when many of your country men have died in a bloody war to preserve the same country. Plus, the fact is the states are stronger together. Sure, they don't align culturally as much but the Federal government steps in to help each state in one way or another (such as how Texas needed help during the crisis it had in the winter despite one of its high ranking officials talking openly about secession a few months before that). Wouldn't deeply entrenched business interests resist this tooth and nail as I am sure many supply chains are interdependent on several states. Besides, wasn't it Ulysses Grant and Abraham Lincoln who believed that preserving the union would save more lives in the end as if there were two countries in the same subcontinent, war would be inevitable over the centuries (in a manner similar to European wars that had been happening for almost a millennia at that point). Don't the leaders realize that simple fact?

syki 5y ago
People, cultures, ideas, and norms change over time. Entrenched business interests would be opposed to the dissolution of the union. But an opportunist with the right charisma and comes along and divides people sufficiently then those interests might not be powerful enough to maintain the union.
- anshumankmr 5y ago
  But the common sense fact should be that if there is dissolution of the Union, peace will never last and the two countries will be in a perpetual war or a cold war. Plus assuming the split is the same as before, minorities will suffer terribly. Back then, it was the slaves who got the worst of it but now America has become a melting pot of all cultures. What will happen to those people? And the allies of America will be left to fend for themselves such as Taiwan, Ukraine, Japan , India etc? Honestly, I presume that common sense will prevail and nothing will change hopefully, such as Roe v Wade not being overturned.
  - syki 5y ago
    In times of ideologically driven divides common sense is one of the first casualties.

ipaddr 5y ago

This is the way the American system works and on the whole it allows different places to have laws that reflect different groups of people. If you waited for federal interests to align weed would still be illegal and probably never get legalized or only much later. Same with Gay marriage. You also have the issue with if the fed is making all of the rules are they going to send money to cover those additional costs or provide the services themselves if they don't it puts poor/rich states on different footings. You would need to look at equalization payments. Canada does a version of equalization but in reality one or two Provinces cover the costs for the rest. If another Province has a good year they lobby to change the formula to exclude that income. How would that work for the US? New York, California basically give 500 million a year to mostly poor red states to pay for services? I can't see that working well.. because if the next group in Washington starts enacting hard right laws (everyone gets a free gun) California has no power to enact different laws and they have to pay for everyone's guns. The other problem is companies would leave California and move to a poor state with better company tax laws and services.

syki 5y ago
It’s not how the system has worked for the past 150 years or so. Rights recognized by the Supreme Court have been inviolable as far as I know. I can’t think of an instance in which the Supreme Court said you have the right to X while not immediately striking down a law that effectively violates that right. I’m not a legal scholar so I could be wrong. There are variations amongst the laws of the states but federal laws and federal rights generally take precedence over an individual state’s desires. There are exceptions but generally this is true. Louisiana wanted to have 18 be the legal drinking age but the federal law that tied highway funding to making the legal age 21 effectively killed this desire by Louisiana and Scalia and others on the Supreme Court allowed this happen. It’s all a delicate balancing act between federal interest, states interests, and peoples’ rights. The Court is upsetting the balance that had been achieved and a new equilibrium will occur.

VoodooJuJu 5y ago

In a way, it is a kind of divide, but in a good way. States have always been divided in a variety of ways, not just geographically. State sovereignty was always the original ideal of the U.S. Ideally, the smaller the entity in question, the more sovereign the entity should be. From least to most sovereign: Federal > State > Municipality > Family > Individual In the case of the article and the Texas law, it's Federal vs State, and State should trump the former. This is good because it encourages competition between states and doesn't cause lock-in for families and individuals - much in the same way that any business competes. If Texas laws and values don't jibe with me, I can live in and support another state that does. Same goes for municipality, family, and individual - you can live in a different village, you can sever familial relations and form new ones, you can change your habits, actions, place of employment, etc.

theklr 5y ago
If only uprooting was as simple as writing this. I’m all for the ideological implications of this but without the social safety net to be able to do this, it feels another extension of increasing classism.
syki 5y ago
You might be able to move to another state but not everyone else can. Your view of how things should work is not feasible or tenable. It would lead to the dissolution of the union.