Comment by supernova87a | Hacker News Reader

Comment by supernova87a | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Sigh, these federal-state-local legal fights over single issues are so exhausting to see, because they really point to no single coherent strategy across our country. For so many issues.

Topic A -- certain state governors don't want to be mandated to do something they don't like that's gaining popular support, and so declare / pass laws that prevent localities from passing their own mandates (any current topic you can think of?)

Topic B -- same or other state governors don't want to have federally mandated rules on another topic, so go against the principle they just used for their own localities, and say that they cannot be mandated to follow something they disagree with.

Topic C -- yet another topic comes up where governors want everyone to follow a certain guideline and not deviate, and insist that every locality does follow top-down legislation, and get upset at other states that don't follow the rule.

Topic D -- "states should have the right to try their own solutions" and not be imposed upon by peanut-butter inappropriate federal solutions on things they disagree with.

Topic E -- "states should follow rules given from the federal government" on things they do agree with.

I'm sometimes exhausted by this patchwork. And principles that flap in the wind.

That's the whole point of federalism/separation of powers. Our government is not supposed to be efficient. This fact might not always make sense to those obsessed with efficiency, such as as programmers, but in this case it's a feature, not a bug.

Disputes between states and the federal government take years/decades to be resolved, but I'd rather have our inefficient system over a more efficient one that is far more prone to being taken over by demagogues and those who seek ultimate power.

I understand that aspect of it, and am all in favor. Sometimes the greatest benefit of our system is that it helps us avoid great folly and disaster, rather than enabling great sudden advances.

What I can't stand is the principled, yet then flip-flop-on-principles, stands people take per issue, only to have it switch with the next issue. It's paralyzing us on important, urgent things that aren't decade-long debates that should be had.

You have to understand that "states rights vs federal jurisdiction" is mostly a useful excuse to try to sell constituents on policy that might be unpopular/harmful to them or to try to sell judges that something might be legal (or not).

It's simply not a legitimate concern to most politicians. Look into the voting records of these flip-floppers. I'm sure you'll find that they more often than not side with lobbyists rather than the will of their electorate.

I think that's the GP's point. Contradicting previously expressed principles shows how little the politician truly cares about those principles. Politicians lying or exaggerating is not surprising, but it's unfortunate that they don't get called on it by the media and/or public more often.

The logic behind federalism is that getting it right is more important than getting it done quickly. Because once it's settled nationally there's no escaping it. In theory states are laboratories of democracy and if an issue is important enough it can be a factor the next time you move. Also government has to operate closer to the people. The factors driving public policy in different areas can lead to different solutions.

Elaborate

This is highly accurate. Our inefficiency and the fact that we're not a democracy, or a republic, but really a bureaucracy might just get us through November.

Not being American, things like that always confused me. But now I kind of look like america like a Russian doll, it's a bunch of tiny countries, inside slightly bigger countries, inside even bigger countries all contained within one country populated by individuals who look at themselves as a country.

And from the bottom up, each country believes they're the ruler of their country and don't like to be told by the countries higher up the totem what to do.

To be honest though, i've always felt like the world would work a lot better if power were structured from the bottom up. Local areas have the highest priority in decisions regarding their area then each level up has less and less power and is focused more on the overall organizing of everything between these smaller areas and the rest of the world.

The way it works in many places right now is backwards, especially in large countries. It ends up that decisions are made about areas hundreds or thousands of km away from the people affected by those decisions.

In the US, there is a thing called The California Effect. California has a history of passing laws for California which end up getting adopted at the federal level.

This is the origin story for environmental protection in this country.

So probably that's a factor here. If you are in the federal government and you know California has the power to de facto dictate federal policy by passing a law at the state level, the only good defense is a proactive offense.

That's a good example.

Even with that case, you will find people who, even if supporting California on its right to promulgate its own air regulations, then turn around and object to other states doing something they don't like, using that same principle.

It seems principles are principles to the extent we agree with them.

I think that's a fair counterbalance to the amount of power smaller states have at a federal level.

Small rural states with similar ideals can form voting blocks and have the benefit of 2 Gauranteed Senators. That plus the electoral college method of presidential elections puts a ton of power in their hands.

I'd call this a feature of the system. Ironically it's "states rights" and the pressure of adopting an existing system ("free market") that's serving the left instead of the right in this case.

I've witnessed the California effect outside of California and America. I've seen the warnings on more than one thing 'this product contains substances known to be harmful in the state of California'. On things as innocuous as a crescent wrench...

This is no different from Europe’s ROHS rules which have helped people worldwide.

"Helped" is a bit of a stretch. One could (and many have) argue that the universal presence of the warnings mean that they are universally ignored.

Wood and stone dust cause cancer. Coffee and alcohol may cause cancer. None of those things are on the same level as tobacco, tanning beds etc. There is a massive spectrum, and the labels themselves don't offer that information.

As such, people depending on the labels may incorrectly assume that using a crescent wrench is as dangerous as smoking tobacco, or vice versa.

To an extent this bottom up approach is somewhat how American federalism has historically worked. Chances are if you are to be stopped by a cop for breaking a law in the US, you're probably breaking a city/county/state law and not a federal law. The rules which touch people most often are largely the ones which happen on the local level. Things like theft, assault, speeding, blasting your music at 3:00 AM and keeping the neighbors up and what not are not illegal federally (unless you're stealing from a federal building) but are usually illegal at a more local level.

For example, when Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy in Dallas Texas, Oswald did not violate a federal crime. There was no law on the books at the federal level which made it a crime to shoot the President. However, murder in the State of Texas was illegal, which is what Oswald was being charged with by Texas courts and by Texas law enforcement.

This has become more and more muddied over time with the expansion of federal powers. More things have become illegal at the federal level, and federal courts have expanded the influence of the Bill of Rights over State laws (see Incorporation[0]). There is a good bit of debate in the US about this growth of federal powers and the role of federal laws in day to day life. Sometimes it is obviously a good thing, sometimes it a bit more complicated. Note in this comment I am not attempting to argue either way, just trying to share knowledge with someone not from the US.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

USA state governments are semi-sovereign. Education standards, driving regulations, murder prosecutions, etc. are all done by the state government. Interstate commerce or foreign relations has to be involved for the federal government to handle it. Municipal corporations derive their authority from the state government and in theory can be dissolved at any time. So when they ban cities from raising the minimum wage but complain about a federal mandate they are legally correct.

Whoever is in control of a "layer" will always want to consolidate control - that means they will try to impose their own favored policies on all other "layers" below them, through whatever means they have at their disposal.

There are theoretical and ideological debates to be had about "states rights," but politicians are interested primarily in exercising power, not in having philosophical debates about the precise balance of powers required for good governance. If an elected official speaks of "states rights," it's usually just a bad faith argument to throw people off the scent of their actual agenda.

> flapping in the wind

I'm fascinated by the push on laws around what people must wear, say on Florida beaches, contrasted with pushback on laws around what people must wear, say in Florida beach shops.

Does the government have the right to make you wear fabric for both face coverage and butt coverage, or neither?

One is a public safety issue, the other one is about morality policing - and for mores that many see as increasingly antiquated.

I actually think this is great. Each issue isn't equal in it's implementation and importance.

Some things I'm fine being decided federally, others I prefer states. These various scenarios allow for that so I think it's a great flexibility of the system.

Are you a natural born citizen? You should know exactly why things work out this way if you are and there's no excuse for your confusion. If you're a green card holder or other non-citizen you can be forgiven for being ignorant, I suppose other nations don't teach people how America works. But if you're on a path to citizenship in any capacity please learn how America works and why. Otherwise you'll be frustrated and unsure of why things work the way they do forever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com