4 ms·

> It's not a US law, it's a state law. In my opinion (I am not attempting to state facts), the semantics of what is a “US law” and what is an “EU law” differ,

by hnarn 4y ago

> It's not a US law, it's a state law. In my opinion (I am not attempting to state facts), the semantics of what is a “US law” and what is an “EU law” differ, because the US is a nation and the EU is not. Therefore it’s my opinion that in order for something to be a “US law”, it’s enough that it’s a law anywhere in the US. I think laws differing across the US is already implied which is why care is taken to label something a “federal” law or crime when it does not. In the EU however, any law that semantically fits into what could be called an “EU law” is a top-down mandate due to the fact that the EU is not a nation but a group of nations, so calling for example a law that exclusively exists in Poland an “EU law” becomes nonsensical when it didn’t even originate from the EU organization. The US is (at least not primarily) just an “organization of states” regardless what one might want to believe from reading the constitution. It’s very much a monolithic nation state in a way that the EU is not and possibly never will be.

polynox 4y ago
I think what makes your definition confusing or misleading is the concept of dual sovereignty. Under the concept of dual sovereignty in a federal system (such as the United States, Russia, Canada, or India), conduct can be legal or illegal under each of the sovereigns independently. At least post-Lochner era there are many laws that are in this scope. An example that might test your definition would be recreational use of marijuana which is legal in some states but illegal federally. It would be at best misleading to say that "US law permits the recreational use of marijuana" even though it meets your definition.
deaddodo 4y ago
I wasn't comparing US law to EU law. I said take a random labor law and state. Given that law, there are various EU nations the the US' would "surpass" (have more citizen/personal protections) and there are some it would "lose" against (more protections for corporations/big brother). Take a liberal state like California or New York and the "surpass" count would be much higher (as in this case, this specific example "surpassing" Germany), especially in regards to labor and tenant protections. Take a state like Mississippi and there are very few EU nations it would "surpass". The counter being to the OP's assumption that the EU, in general, is "more liberal than the US"; ergo it's crazy that there's a state that's actually more protective. Labor laws in Texas have no effect on the 12% of the population that lives in California. So it's disingenuous to compare these laws, something the Federal government specifically doesn't have much say over (due to the enumerated powers clause of the US' limited Federation), to a random nation. The only proper methodology is to compare the scope of where those laws are set. In this specific example, those contexts are: the State level, in the US; a mixture of Bundesrat and Bundesland legislation in Germany. I never even mentioned the EU assembly or EU laws. It would seem you're creating a straw man to "win" an internet argument or reinforce your own worldview.

by hnarn 4y ago

polynox 4y ago

I think what makes your definition confusing or misleading is the concept of dual sovereignty. Under the concept of dual sovereignty in a federal system (such as the United States, Russia, Canada, or India), conduct can be legal or illegal under each of the sovereigns independently. At least post-Lochner era there are many laws that are in this scope. An example that might test your definition would be recreational use of marijuana which is legal in some states but illegal federally. It would be at best misleading to say that "US law permits the recreational use of marijuana" even though it meets your definition.

deaddodo 4y ago

I wasn't comparing US law to EU law. I said take a random labor law and state. Given that law, there are various EU nations the the US' would "surpass" (have more citizen/personal protections) and there are some it would "lose" against (more protections for corporations/big brother). Take a liberal state like California or New York and the "surpass" count would be much higher (as in this case, this specific example "surpassing" Germany), especially in regards to labor and tenant protections. Take a state like Mississippi and there are very few EU nations it would "surpass". The counter being to the OP's assumption that the EU, in general, is "more liberal than the US"; ergo it's crazy that there's a state that's actually more protective. Labor laws in Texas have no effect on the 12% of the population that lives in California. So it's disingenuous to compare these laws, something the Federal government specifically doesn't have much say over (due to the enumerated powers clause of the US' limited Federation), to a random nation. The only proper methodology is to compare the scope of where those laws are set. In this specific example, those contexts are: the State level, in the US; a mixture of Bundesrat and Bundesland legislation in Germany. I never even mentioned the EU assembly or EU laws. It would seem you're creating a straw man to "win" an internet argument or reinforce your own worldview.