11 ms·

> This is actually super interesting in that Article 1. Section 10 suggests this requires Congressional approval. The UCC is not an interstate compact in the s

> This is actually super interesting in that Article 1. Section 10 suggests this requires Congressional approval. The UCC is not an interstate compact in the sense of Article 1 Section 10. They're merely the same code that each state chose to adopt, with no legal ability for any other state to question if one state chooses to deviate from it in part or whole. It absolutely does not require Congressional approval. Interstate compacts are more like treaties that states make with each other. You're absolutely right that state sovereignty has been steadily eroding, and I posit that this is to everyone's disadvantage. As in your example, just because states' rights were once used to champion the evil cause of slavery then later Jim Crow, does not mean that the whole concept of states' rights is wrong. Besides, tort and contract laws are historically the primary domain of state law. I don't see why the US Congress has to be the one to define it for everyone.

duped 4y ago
> You're absolutely right that state sovereignty has been steadily eroding, and I posit that this is to everyone's disadvantage. The evidence suggests otherwise. When states wield their power on rights, it's usually against the interests of their people until the federal government forces them to stop by removing their power to do so. That doesn't mean the federal government is without issue, but it is the entity designed to protect liberties. I don't think this is a simple case of tort that could or should vary between states. It's about the freedom of individuals to choose who employs them and protecting them from those with power. The existence of this as a state law would only serve to exist in opposition to states that don't, to the detriment of their citizens.
- prottog 4y ago
  > The evidence suggests otherwise. When states wield their power on rights, it's usually against the interests of their people States decriminalizing pot, for one, would be an example of state law trying to broaden liberties that federal law restricts. Or Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage long before the US Congress did anything about it. Or even at a smaller level, San Francisco city officials doing so before the state of California did. There's plenty of examples where a more local decision went in furtherance of liberties than a more distant decision, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that politicians become more enlightened and virtuous the higher up in the federation they go. > The existence of this as a state law would only serve to exist in opposition to states that don't, to the detriment of their citizens. I'm not sure I follow. I think it's perfectly fine to let the fifty laboratories of democracy play this out, keeping the locus of control as close to the people as possible. The people of California have shown that the lack of noncompetes doesn't necessarily impede commerce or progress; the people of other states may learn from that and follow, or decide otherwise. And if those states that keep enforcing noncompetes do end up doing poorer for their people, they will change the law, or vote with their feet.

duped 4y ago

> You're absolutely right that state sovereignty has been steadily eroding, and I posit that this is to everyone's disadvantage. The evidence suggests otherwise. When states wield their power on rights, it's usually against the interests of their people until the federal government forces them to stop by removing their power to do so. That doesn't mean the federal government is without issue, but it is the entity designed to protect liberties. I don't think this is a simple case of tort that could or should vary between states. It's about the freedom of individuals to choose who employs them and protecting them from those with power. The existence of this as a state law would only serve to exist in opposition to states that don't, to the detriment of their citizens.

prottog 4y ago
> The evidence suggests otherwise. When states wield their power on rights, it's usually against the interests of their people States decriminalizing pot, for one, would be an example of state law trying to broaden liberties that federal law restricts. Or Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage long before the US Congress did anything about it. Or even at a smaller level, San Francisco city officials doing so before the state of California did. There's plenty of examples where a more local decision went in furtherance of liberties than a more distant decision, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that politicians become more enlightened and virtuous the higher up in the federation they go. > The existence of this as a state law would only serve to exist in opposition to states that don't, to the detriment of their citizens. I'm not sure I follow. I think it's perfectly fine to let the fifty laboratories of democracy play this out, keeping the locus of control as close to the people as possible. The people of California have shown that the lack of noncompetes doesn't necessarily impede commerce or progress; the people of other states may learn from that and follow, or decide otherwise. And if those states that keep enforcing noncompetes do end up doing poorer for their people, they will change the law, or vote with their feet.