3 ms·

That's because the US wasn't designed to have unelected federal bureaucrats create laws for the entire country. Every state should make their own laws, and then

by roshin 2y ago

That's because the US wasn't designed to have unelected federal bureaucrats create laws for the entire country. Every state should make their own laws, and then those state's courts could determine if the law is legal or not.

jmyeet 2y ago
That's ahistorical. The Federal court system was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 [1], the same year the constitution came into force (which established the Supreme Court). Whenever people bring up "states rights" with objectively false claims, one needs to consider the history of such a claim. It was most prominent in the Secession Crisis and the obvious follow up question is "states rights to do what?" because the answer is "to own people as property". Google is free. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judiciary_of_the_Unite...
sitkack 2y ago
They can't because those same corporate and conservative players will use the Commerce Clause to prevent any meaningful legislation at the state level. You get to choose the color of the billy club of submission but not how it is held or its target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/752 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art... Your ideology is leaking.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  Exactly. The standard playbook is to attack attempts to do this at the federal level by arguing it's a state decision, and attack attempts to do this at the state level using the excessively broadened Commerce Clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn was a horrible overreaching mistake, as was every other expansion of the Commerce Clause. (There are different playbooks for passing laws that curtail personal rights, by arguing to do it at both the state and federal level, or removing federal prohibitions on something and then enacting it on a state by state basis while trying to pass the reverse at the federal level.)
- elevatedastalt 2y ago
  The Commerce Clause serves no master. It can be used for federal overreach in either direction. For eg. without the a lot of regulatory behavior that the Congress does today is by relying on the Commerce Clause.
rodgerd 2y ago
Was the US designed to have a couple of judges in Texas determine the law for the whole country?
SideQuark 2y ago
> That's because the US wasn't designed Yes, it was. The Founding Fathers created this system. Simply use google instead of making up claims.

by roshin 2y ago

jmyeet 2y ago

That's ahistorical. The Federal court system was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 [1], the same year the constitution came into force (which established the Supreme Court). Whenever people bring up "states rights" with objectively false claims, one needs to consider the history of such a claim. It was most prominent in the Secession Crisis and the obvious follow up question is "states rights to do what?" because the answer is "to own people as property". Google is free. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judiciary_of_the_Unite...

sitkack 2y ago

They can't because those same corporate and conservative players will use the Commerce Clause to prevent any meaningful legislation at the state level. You get to choose the color of the billy club of submission but not how it is held or its target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/752 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art... Your ideology is leaking.

JoshTriplett 2y ago
Exactly. The standard playbook is to attack attempts to do this at the federal level by arguing it's a state decision, and attack attempts to do this at the state level using the excessively broadened Commerce Clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn was a horrible overreaching mistake, as was every other expansion of the Commerce Clause. (There are different playbooks for passing laws that curtail personal rights, by arguing to do it at both the state and federal level, or removing federal prohibitions on something and then enacting it on a state by state basis while trying to pass the reverse at the federal level.)
elevatedastalt 2y ago
The Commerce Clause serves no master. It can be used for federal overreach in either direction. For eg. without the a lot of regulatory behavior that the Congress does today is by relying on the Commerce Clause.

rodgerd 2y ago

Was the US designed to have a couple of judges in Texas determine the law for the whole country?

SideQuark 2y ago

> That's because the US wasn't designed Yes, it was. The Founding Fathers created this system. Simply use google instead of making up claims.