4 ms·

It’s called the Death Star law for a reason: https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/texas-death-star-house-bill-could-kill-local-control-worker-housing-protectio

It’s called the Death Star law for a reason: https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/texas-death-star-house-bill-could-kill-local-control-worker-housing-protections/ https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/texas-death-star-house... (Spoiler: it’s for eroding local control for democratic run major cities and not for preventing conflicts)

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
What Texas needs is a Frankenstein Veto that will give workers 4-hour breaks every 10 minutes!
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  That would only work if the governor was less evil than the legislature.
NoRelToEmber 3y ago
The federal government "eroded local control" and forbade states from enforcing immigration laws, despite itself being derelict in enforcing those laws: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/supreme-court... States agreed to some written terms, limiting their own sovereignty, to join a union. That union then ignores terms it dislikes. States try to enforce those terms, but suddenly the union changes tune, finds that enforcing (some) terms actually is important, and stops those states. But preventing laws from changing from city to city is the real tragedy.
- vaidhy 3y ago
  Sp, 2 wrongs make a right? From what I remember, immigration is federal jurisdiction and not state. States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws and the supreme court judgement agrees with that viewpoint. And you are talking about the same state that asked the rangers to push people into the Rio and not to give water to the immigrants? At some point, you would think those are your fellow people. Preventing laws from being humane is the real tragedy.
  - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
    > States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws Think that over - states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age [1], transgender bathroom access [2], or not hiring enough minority-owned tunneling companies [3]. Only when it comes to enforcing federal laws that the federal government would rather not see enforced, do suddenly issues of standing and federal jurisdiction appear - as if states have no interest in who enters their territory. States and their populations direct how the federal government should act by passing laws. That government then ignores those laws at their leisure, and prevents the states from enforcing them. Doesn't that sound a bit undemocratic to you? Though that accusation seems to be levied only when convenient, with little relation to its meaning. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti... [2] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-holding-school-lunch-money-hostage-force-transgender-policies https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-holding-school-... [3] https://www.kiro7.com/news/federal-government-threatens-pull-tunnel-money/246018295/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/federal-government-threatens-pull...
    - Moomoomoo309 3y ago
      The system is not a democracy, it's a democratic republic. The undemocratic elements you're referring to are just that - the republic. If the federal government were to capitulate to the states, there would be no republic. They tried that with the Articles of Confederation, the US's first government. You need a strong federal government with its own set of rules. Home rule must be limited to some extent to allow for people to work together. I think in this case for Texas, they've squeezed home rule too hard, but that is always going to be a balancing act. Also, as an aside, I find it very interesting you mentioned transgender people, but not gay people in that bathroom example - the ban was on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination of all forms, why did you choose to single one particular kind out?
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
goldenManatee 3y ago
Man, the people of Texas really expect very little regard to their own humanity, seeing as they keep re-electing these guys. I can see how that’s very good for business.
- ncr100 3y ago
  Sounds like * Russia * China ... yup

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

What Texas needs is a Frankenstein Veto that will give workers 4-hour breaks every 10 minutes!

TheCoelacanth 3y ago
That would only work if the governor was less evil than the legislature.

NoRelToEmber 3y ago

The federal government "eroded local control" and forbade states from enforcing immigration laws, despite itself being derelict in enforcing those laws: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/supreme-court... States agreed to some written terms, limiting their own sovereignty, to join a union. That union then ignores terms it dislikes. States try to enforce those terms, but suddenly the union changes tune, finds that enforcing (some) terms actually is important, and stops those states. But preventing laws from changing from city to city is the real tragedy.

vaidhy 3y ago
Sp, 2 wrongs make a right? From what I remember, immigration is federal jurisdiction and not state. States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws and the supreme court judgement agrees with that viewpoint. And you are talking about the same state that asked the rangers to push people into the Rio and not to give water to the immigrants? At some point, you would think those are your fellow people. Preventing laws from being humane is the real tragedy.
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago
  > States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws Think that over - states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age [1], transgender bathroom access [2], or not hiring enough minority-owned tunneling companies [3]. Only when it comes to enforcing federal laws that the federal government would rather not see enforced, do suddenly issues of standing and federal jurisdiction appear - as if states have no interest in who enters their territory. States and their populations direct how the federal government should act by passing laws. That government then ignores those laws at their leisure, and prevents the states from enforcing them. Doesn't that sound a bit undemocratic to you? Though that accusation seems to be levied only when convenient, with little relation to its meaning. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti... [2] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-holding-school-lunch-money-hostage-force-transgender-policies https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-holding-school-... [3] https://www.kiro7.com/news/federal-government-threatens-pull-tunnel-money/246018295/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/federal-government-threatens-pull...
  - Moomoomoo309 3y ago
    The system is not a democracy, it's a democratic republic. The undemocratic elements you're referring to are just that - the republic. If the federal government were to capitulate to the states, there would be no republic. They tried that with the Articles of Confederation, the US's first government. You need a strong federal government with its own set of rules. Home rule must be limited to some extent to allow for people to work together. I think in this case for Texas, they've squeezed home rule too hard, but that is always going to be a balancing act. Also, as an aside, I find it very interesting you mentioned transgender people, but not gay people in that bathroom example - the ban was on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination of all forms, why did you choose to single one particular kind out?
  - mrguyorama 3y ago

goldenManatee 3y ago

Man, the people of Texas really expect very little regard to their own humanity, seeing as they keep re-electing these guys. I can see how that’s very good for business.

ncr100 3y ago
Sounds like * Russia * China ... yup