> The EU already has this albeit only for citizens of other EU countries.
Seems about the same as US states allowing people from other US states to vote.
Seems about the same as US states allowing people from other US states to vote.
That's not a correct analogy. The EU is a voluntary economic coalition of multiple sovereign nations while US States are administrative districts of a single sovereign nation. EU nations allow residency status to citizens of other EU nations, but it's definitely still "moving abroad" not like "moving from California to Texas"
But most EU countries won't yet allow EU citizens from other countries to vote for, e.g. president of that country, to my knowledge.
That is not accurate. Most of the legal power in the US comes from the individual states, unless specifically enumerated at the federal level.
Perhaps, since US States are closer to sovereign than to administrative districts. In reality, they are neither. But to call them administrative districts is easily falsifiable, so I think that's why you got pushback.
Things like gay marriage up until a few years ago, abortion laws and drug laws today are the most visible examples where states are far from administrative districts. People can open up stores in some states to sell drugs out in the open, despite them being illegal according to the US Government. Yet there is nothing the Federal Government can do to stop it. Even taxation where you see some states have no state income tax (Florida, Tennessee and a few others) while states like California tax almost everything. The Federal government has no power over the states in those areas. None.
Whereas gun laws are probably the best example of the limits on that sovereignty only because the enumerated things in the Constitution (ie 2nd Amendment) put some limitations on the freedom of states to do as they please. But the Constitution is a small document and the limitations contained are few, leaving states with far more power than an administrative district.
Perhaps if we had a common definition of what "administrative district" means, then I would agree. Until then, we're all just making things up inside our heads and arguing about that. Even the lawyer scolding me here for discussing such matters without his permission admitted there is no legal definition for that term.
There is nothing about the plain definitions of "district" nor "administrative" that does not apply to the (US) State, and if anyone argues otherwise they're choosing an unwarrantedly restrictive definition. There is nothing inherent about that term that excludes domestic "sovereignty" nor asserts anything about State relationship to the Feds.
Again, the original contrast is sovereign nation to top-level region inside sovereign nation. I labeled this "administrative district" as a generic term for all of the States/Provinces/Oblasts/Regions/what-have-you in every country of the world, of whatever size, number, method of government. None is like the other, except that they are all districts (using the reasonable, every day, broad definition) that are administered in some way, whether by a governor, king, parliament, minister, whatever.
And now, we are literally arguing semantics.
> closer to sovereign
At the risk of my getting bullied by the lawyer again, you all really have to get off this tip. Internationally, no one cares about state "sovereignty". It has meaning only inside the US. It's like the word "Autonomous" appended to the name of some administrative districts of the USSR. It surely had some legal meaning within their framework, and for them their "Autonomy" was very, very, very important but no one else cares. As far as anyone else cares, how the US chooses to "administer" its "districts", it has nothing to do with international sovereignty. I'm sure if I said the USSR was autonomous like the US is but unlike their respective administrative districts, some pedant would argue about how this or that Oblast is "autonomous", too, completely unlike the US states. That's what's happening here.
this is false. under a unitary government system that would be true but the US runs under a federalist system. states and the federal government are considered sovereign---at least as far as domestic issues go---and maintain a clear separation of powers. federal government is involved with national and intra-state issues while the states are involved with police and making regulations for their citizens. the federal government, can't, for example dissolve a state government like China could dissolve a province's government.
Not exactly, but we're arguing semantics. Nothing I said contradicts what you wrote.
Still, Federal Law supercedes State Law, and no State Constitution can contradict the US Constitution.
Your Federalist idea was probably more true before the Civil War, but these days not so much. No, in practice, States are administrative regions, not sovereign powers. Whenever governors or state legislatures start behaving as if they are, they get slapped down by the Feds. qv the Rhode Island governor trying to prevent New Yorkers from entering; California legalizing Marijuana; Arkansas cops raiding Indian reservations selling cigarettes.
I mean, unless you want to define "administrative region" as "able to be dissolved by Presidential fiat" then, sure. Ok. Otherwise it's a distinction without a difference.
> Not exactly
Yes, exactly.
> Federal Law supercedes State Law
Not on state issues. The federal government has to stay in its lane.
> no State Constitution can contradict the US Constitution
Yes, they can, unless explicitly overridden. For example, most states do not have grand juries, even though the U.S. Constitution requires one before charging someone with a felony.
>>> this is false
>> Not exactly
> Yes, exactly
There's a legal definition of "administrative district" I was unaware of that necessarily excludes States? If so, this could be one of the most interesting conversations I've yet had on HN. If not, this is the silliest conversation I've yet had on HN.
It's even more silly when those same people deliberately truncate statements. What you claimed was "States are administrative districts of a single sovereign nation"
Argue whatever semantics you want about the definition of "administrative district." Sovereignty has a well-developed legal definition, and it emphatically applies to each of the fifty states.
The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue countless times, from Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) ("I acknowledge, and shall always contend, that the States are sovereignties") to Gamble v. United States (2019) (reaffirming the dual sovereignty doctrine).
States having sovereignty is a distracting non-sequitur. It's not relevant.
The original comparison was States to EU members. If you want to argue they all have 'sovereignty', fine. They all have a thing called 'sovereignty'. But Italy doesn't care about Oregon's sovereignty. Italy doesn't deal with Oregon as a nation. Oregon can't declare war on Italy nor negotiate peace. Italy doesn't recognize Oregon's governor as a Head of State. For all intents and purposes, to Italy and the EU, Oregon is an administrative district not a "sovereignty".
A Greek citizen cannot move to Sweden and vote in national elections as easily as a Texan can move to Massachusetts and vote in state elections. There are a lot of reasons for that which have zero to do with State "sovereignty".
I recommend keeping an eye out for it whenever you're baffled by political discourse around a given topic. It's pretty fascinating how often it pops up and explains how two sides of a conversation can be speaking completely different languages.