66 ms·

I understand why the mechanisms are the way they are, I'm saying that the intellectualization of criminalizing abortion in the US under libertarian theory is a

I understand why the mechanisms are the way they are, I'm saying that the intellectualization of criminalizing abortion in the US under libertarian theory is a lazy argument. "People shouldn't interfere with others" is fine in a hypothetical setting. Put into practice under the US legal system you just end up with tyranny of the majority at the State level, meanwhile the Federal government is powerless to intervene because of anti-democratic measures like the Senate and the Filibuster. There's a reason why "states rights" has typically been used to justify inequity.

lettergram 4y ago
> Put into practice under the US legal system you just end up with tyranny of the majority at the State level, meanwhile the Federal government is powerless to intervene because of anti-democratic measures like the Senate and the Filibuster. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on election related issues. I wouldn’t be surprised if they rule (correctly, based on the constitution) that every state can manage its own voting laws. Alaska does rank choice voting now, for instance. Iowa does caucus voting. Illinois does majority vote. The constitution didn’t prescribe how a vote should take place. It did say, it must be democratic. So while you may get some majority rule. The states are also setup to protect minority (politically) interests. Many have multi-chamber governmental setups, for example. What is also often overlooked is that each state is self-governing. That is to say; there is no federal body dictating what happens / who is appointed in states. Similar to the EU, each state is effectively a country onto itself. The states came together to federalize (like the EU), but they retained most of the sovereignty. Over the years (again, much like the EU), that has been stripped away. But I think we’re at a point where sovereignty is returning to states.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on election related issues. The Supreme Court rules all the time on election related issues. > I wouldn’t be surprised if they rule (correctly, based on the constitution) that every state can manage its own voting laws. That's the status quo, except for certain element of various federal elections for which there is an explicit Congressional role. What the pending case is about the independent state legislature theory, which is a legal theory that the State legislature, in deciding various election-related matters assigned to it by federal law and/or the US Constitution, is not bound by the State Constitution as interpreted by the State Supreme Court but instead has sole and unreviewable (so long as exercised within federal constraints) authority. This extends to things like redistricting; assignment of Presidential electors, including by retrospective nullification of a vote of the people for that purpose; setting process for Congressional elections; etc. > What is also often overlooked is that each state is self-governing. The ISL theory contradicts that idea, and essentially holds that the State Legislature, in conduct of federal elections, is an arm of the Federal government, outside of the mechanisms by which the people of the State have circumscribed the powers and exercises thereof by the State government.
- softcactus 4y ago
  Our Federal system (each state having some autonomy) started because charters were given to English nobility to establish colonies. By the time of the revolutionary war the states needed a central authority to unify them, but also ensure that they couldn't impose punitive taxes on one another and gain too much power. After the Civil War, the role of the states was severely limited. But the famous cry of "states rights" rang out any time groups wanted to defend regressive legislature. There is a reason why the Republican party, who cling to power through anti-democratic means, constantly bitch and moan about states rights. In 2022 does it make sense that a state like Georgia, should be able to set the rules of a Federal election? Given the history of our country where states ONLY exist because of colonial charters? There is nothing inherently unique about states other than some Englishman 400 years ago was given lease to them. States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry, and the main mechanism that the Republican party uses to stay in control is by limiting who can vote. The outcome will be large-scale disenfranchisement of poor people and African-Americans in southern states. After responding to a lot of your comments it seems like you don't have a great grasp of US history. A lot of it seems sanitized/centered on Civics but without an actual understanding of why the system is set up the way it is and how the power dynamics have played out under that system. I would encourage you to read about the history of the Southern US starting from the earliest days of Virginian and Carolinian tobacco plantations. If you want to understand why a lot of your arguments serve only to embolden anti-democratic reactionaries, and have been for the last 200+ years.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    > After responding to a lot of your comments it seems like you don't have a great grasp of US history Lol I enjoy how often people on HN descend to personal attacks as opposed to discussion on the merits. Just to point it out, > States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry, and the main mechanism that the Republican party uses to stay in control is by limiting who can vote. You realize this was a democratic rallying cry until the 60s? Democrats were the ones trying to limit who votes, hanging, and burning towns. Both parties attempt to suppress / encourage demographics who support them. Been that way all of American history. I encourage you to read source material. What I’m reading from you is exceedingly partisan and not really a balanced view or even historical view; it’s mostly propaganda. > A lot of it seems sanitized/centered on Civics but without an actual understanding of why the system is set up the way it is and how the power dynamics have played out under that system. Ah that 1619 project… the Marxist rewrite of American history.

lettergram 4y ago

> Put into practice under the US legal system you just end up with tyranny of the majority at the State level, meanwhile the Federal government is powerless to intervene because of anti-democratic measures like the Senate and the Filibuster. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on election related issues. I wouldn’t be surprised if they rule (correctly, based on the constitution) that every state can manage its own voting laws. Alaska does rank choice voting now, for instance. Iowa does caucus voting. Illinois does majority vote. The constitution didn’t prescribe how a vote should take place. It did say, it must be democratic. So while you may get some majority rule. The states are also setup to protect minority (politically) interests. Many have multi-chamber governmental setups, for example. What is also often overlooked is that each state is self-governing. That is to say; there is no federal body dictating what happens / who is appointed in states. Similar to the EU, each state is effectively a country onto itself. The states came together to federalize (like the EU), but they retained most of the sovereignty. Over the years (again, much like the EU), that has been stripped away. But I think we’re at a point where sovereignty is returning to states.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on election related issues. The Supreme Court rules all the time on election related issues. > I wouldn’t be surprised if they rule (correctly, based on the constitution) that every state can manage its own voting laws. That's the status quo, except for certain element of various federal elections for which there is an explicit Congressional role. What the pending case is about the independent state legislature theory, which is a legal theory that the State legislature, in deciding various election-related matters assigned to it by federal law and/or the US Constitution, is not bound by the State Constitution as interpreted by the State Supreme Court but instead has sole and unreviewable (so long as exercised within federal constraints) authority. This extends to things like redistricting; assignment of Presidential electors, including by retrospective nullification of a vote of the people for that purpose; setting process for Congressional elections; etc. > What is also often overlooked is that each state is self-governing. The ISL theory contradicts that idea, and essentially holds that the State Legislature, in conduct of federal elections, is an arm of the Federal government, outside of the mechanisms by which the people of the State have circumscribed the powers and exercises thereof by the State government.
softcactus 4y ago
Our Federal system (each state having some autonomy) started because charters were given to English nobility to establish colonies. By the time of the revolutionary war the states needed a central authority to unify them, but also ensure that they couldn't impose punitive taxes on one another and gain too much power. After the Civil War, the role of the states was severely limited. But the famous cry of "states rights" rang out any time groups wanted to defend regressive legislature. There is a reason why the Republican party, who cling to power through anti-democratic means, constantly bitch and moan about states rights. In 2022 does it make sense that a state like Georgia, should be able to set the rules of a Federal election? Given the history of our country where states ONLY exist because of colonial charters? There is nothing inherently unique about states other than some Englishman 400 years ago was given lease to them. States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry, and the main mechanism that the Republican party uses to stay in control is by limiting who can vote. The outcome will be large-scale disenfranchisement of poor people and African-Americans in southern states. After responding to a lot of your comments it seems like you don't have a great grasp of US history. A lot of it seems sanitized/centered on Civics but without an actual understanding of why the system is set up the way it is and how the power dynamics have played out under that system. I would encourage you to read about the history of the Southern US starting from the earliest days of Virginian and Carolinian tobacco plantations. If you want to understand why a lot of your arguments serve only to embolden anti-democratic reactionaries, and have been for the last 200+ years.
- lettergram 4y ago
  > After responding to a lot of your comments it seems like you don't have a great grasp of US history Lol I enjoy how often people on HN descend to personal attacks as opposed to discussion on the merits. Just to point it out, > States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry, and the main mechanism that the Republican party uses to stay in control is by limiting who can vote. You realize this was a democratic rallying cry until the 60s? Democrats were the ones trying to limit who votes, hanging, and burning towns. Both parties attempt to suppress / encourage demographics who support them. Been that way all of American history. I encourage you to read source material. What I’m reading from you is exceedingly partisan and not really a balanced view or even historical view; it’s mostly propaganda. > A lot of it seems sanitized/centered on Civics but without an actual understanding of why the system is set up the way it is and how the power dynamics have played out under that system. Ah that 1619 project… the Marxist rewrite of American history.