4 ms·
Fortunately, the administration's party believes that control belongs to the states and not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
by jfengel 5mo ago
Fortunately, the administration's party believes that control belongs to the states and not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
- voidfunc 5mo agoSarcasm right?
- bigyabai 5mo agoIt's been a joke ever since The Lost Cause was invented.
- smallmancontrov 5mo agoWell, before they lost the Civil War they believed that "states rights" should apply to the administration of slavery but not the non-administration of slavery (the Fugitive Slave Laws). The hypocrisy runs deep.
- shermantanktop 5mo agoSuch “beliefs” are cooked up by people who are mostly self-serving and insincere. We’d call them “political operatives” today I guess. Unfortunately other people hear the ideas, internalize them, and repeat them, without recognizing any contradictions.
- analognoise 5mo agoFascist parties aren’t worried about logical inconsistency, they’re only worried about the pursuit of unchecked power. They crossed that bridge some time ago. These aren’t the old breed of Republicans who disagreed but at least were consistent.
- zdragnar 5mo agoConsidering that most of the rules states would introduce would run a foul of interstate commerce, it seems like a good way to get ahead of pointless lawsuits. Note that these rules apply to the development of AI, not any restriction on how it is used in e.g. schools, communications etc.
- Retric 5mo agoInterstate commerce has been redefined to mean both way less and way more than the phrase might seem to imply. States can for example introduce rules on emissions when no cars are manufactured in that state.
- cyanydeez 5mo ago[flagged]
- codeddesign 5mo agoDo you plan on selling the fetuses? This is associated with commerce and inter-state use. During Covid, their were individual state laws around employment vaccinations.
- cataphract 5mo agoNot really. The only reason California was able to do this is because it got waivers for the federal law preemption rule (in the Clean Air Act).
- yieldcrv 5mo agoamusing, but the pattern actually is clear. they don’t like laws created by courts, and when there isn’t an affirming law matching the court decision passed by Congress then it falls back to the states. so if Congress passes the law its fine, Congress just happens to not have a consensus forming mechanism for things the parties choose to be interested in, for decades. Courts striking down a law passed by the legislature, voter referendum (exclusive to some states) or agency - fine, tolerable. Courts creating a national law in the absence of one by the legislature - not fine, intolerable. Only fixable by the court overruling itself or constitutional amendment.
- jfengel 5mo agoThey are routinely thrilled when it's law passed by the courts in their favor. The court has made a bewildering set of rulings on gerrymandering whose only commonality is they they always favor Republicans.
- yesco 5mo agoYou can agree or disagree with the consequences, but the voting rights act never had any explicit provisions about districting, this was something conjured entirely by the courts. It was even framed as a temporary measure at the time of the original ruling. So not exactly bewildering, I personally saw it as closer to inevitable. The Supreme Court never had the power to legislate, it can only interpret, and a shaky interpretation always has an expiration date no matter how popular it is.
- yieldcrv 5mo agoIt fits the pattern perfectly The court invalidated part of an existing law passed by Congress, it didn’t create a national framework in the absence of any law never passed by Congress
- onlyrealcuzzo 5mo agoSmall government, unless it gets in the way of a certain billionaire's plans to ram AI / unsafe autonomous vehicles down your throats. The interesting thing is... The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA, so it'll be interesting how this is spun. I just really don't see anyone except AI-bulls like Kevin O'Leary who think it's in everyone's best interest for people to have no say on AI. To be clear, I'm an AI bull myself, and I think most things are good, but I also think people and communities should be able to have their say, and I think anyone who doesn't - doesn't deserve to call themselves anything other than an authoritarian. If the people don't know what's good for them, it isn't a them problem it's a you problem, not a ram it down their throats cause it's best for them problem...
- anigbrowl 5mo agoThe only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA Why do you say this? Going by MAGA types online, they seem extremely willing to rely on it for opinions and to generate political 'art'.
- bryanrasmussen 5mo ago>The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA, It seems to me that meme usage tells a decidedly different story.
- rayiner 5mo ago“Control” of what? The type of thing is relevant. E.g. Nobody says regulating trains or airlines belongs to states. Similarly, nobody says the internet should be regulated by states.
- Barrin92 5mo agohaven't countless of red American states passed age verification laws in relation to adult entertainment recently? Or is that different because there's only AI but no porn oligarchs in Washington?
- kyledrake 5mo agoIt's not different and it should also be done on a federal level, instead of 50 different governments passing random crazy internet laws. When you have to do compliance for hundreds of laws in 50 different states it basically becomes impossible to do it and you end up in this weird position where you're probably breaking a law somewhere and you don't even know about it.
- hollerith 4mo ago>it basically becomes impossible to do it Those of us who want to "unnormalize" porn consider that a feature.
- trumpdong 4mo agoWhy do you hate freedom?
- rayiner 4mo agoThe founders' conception of "freedom" was different than the modern "anything goes" version. It was closer to the idea that moral and disciplined people could be trusted with freedom. As John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- themafia 5mo agoUnfortunately, there's always someone to blindly inject party politics into HN threads. So, is what you're saying, is that if the "other party" had a majority, this wouldn't happen? Or.. what are you trying to convey? You don't like republicans and find them hypocritical?
- bdangubic 5mo agothe last one. states rights only when convenient :)
- jubilanti 5mo ago#1 this is literally a thread about laws in the US Congress, how is this not about party politics? #2 they are alluding to how, historically, Republicans have advocated against so many regulations and social services, under the rationale of "State's Rights." But the new Republican party under Trump has repeatedly been enforcing nationwide conservative policies that completely trample on the states and give so much centralized power to the federal government.
- themafia 5mo agoLaws can have bipartisan support or disapproval. So just because a law was passed does not mean "party politics" were involved, or that fealty to a president was the motivation. If you automatically think these things I think you're depriving yourself of the deeper understanding that _money_ controls politics. The Republican party under Trump is not "new" by any stretch of the imagination. It's the same tired old story since the 1990s. Which I guess is my real complaint. You're just throwing out a 30 year old party line to get votes, not to derive any insight, or to engage with any plan to _fight_ this insanity. I mean, what would the solution be, just end the Republican party and move to a one party state? That it was at the top of the thread I found rather cheap and frivolous.
- sanktanglia 5mo agoTrump's gop has been extreme to levels not seen for generations so yes it is quite new. Previously Republicans attempted to pretend they cared about a number of things, now if they hate gays and Democrats and foreigners enough publicly, that's the only thing they need to be elected