Hacker News Reader

Comment by stackskipton | Hacker News Reader

I think they rightly pointed out that US States construct is problematic esp in much more interconnected world.

However, I think fundamental problem still goes back to politics where Congress effectively does not do their job and thus fighting around executive and judicial leave us in worse place. Chevron and lack of it is mostly due to Congress just passing big stuff and then massive fights in courts when Congress could step in and be like "Nope, we are changing our mind, this is happening."

View on HN

Congress moves too slow to be effective at thwarting off bad policy (largely written by lobbyists) until after it’s done its damage. By then, the senators that sponsored the bill quietly retire. Or they double down behind closed doors to be elected well into their geriatric years. I’m for term limits and age caps.

Lobbyists can't write bad policy unless it is passed by congress, so basically you are saying that congress doesn't move fast enough to stop congress. I'm also skeptical of this "but the lobbyists" argument and I can't think of a single major problem facing the country that can be reasonably blamed on them.

https://systemicjustice.org/article/corporate-influence/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10938928/

You can't think of any?

The constitution has been absurdly broken by a cult of partisan federal judges claiming to be textual, but then inventing an absurd canon of non-laws no one can reference:

* Unitary executive theory. Congress can't create a federal reserve, except for when the supreme court likes it.

* Major questions doctrine. Congress can't create an EPA and give it open ended authority to regulate its way to clean air

* Qualified immunity. Congress can't stop ICE agents from murdering people

* Historical tradition as regard to the 2nd amendment. Congress can't ban everyone from walking around with military assault weapons.

I don't see how Congress can easily fix this.

The problem is the inflexibility of the constitution. If judges hadn't made the conscious decisions to turn the constitution into whatever they feel like, you'd be stuck in an even worse system of obsolete 18th century government.

This; the “originalists” who dress up in wigs and shock of shocks, just so happen to rule contrary to the way things have worked for the last 50 years.

I agree that partisan federal judges have caused this but my point is, Congress makes it worse.

Unitary is just wrong and Congress could continue to push back against it.

Major Question keeps coming up Congress does not step in after passing of EPA. Major EPA cases are like "Well, does this mean what we think it means because some comma somewhere" and Congress could step in and say "No, we really meant this."

Qualified Immunity is again something else Congress could step in on and say "Nope, we are eliminating qualified immunity or tailoring it back."

2nd Amendment is third rail I don't wish to touch.

I would argue states are ideal in an era of social media-triggered political fragmentation. People can move to the state which aligns best with their preferred policies.

Relatively few people have the economic means to just pull up stakes and move states even if they had no family ties (e.g.) keeping them back.

The sort may be slow and incomplete, but it still seems preferable to the status quo?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com