News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

Started by Caliga, November 07, 2020, 12:07:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jacob

What are the practical implications of this thing?

Are the States going to obstruct federal officials? Stop co-operating with them? And if so, in what way?

Or is it pure theatre at this point?

grumbler

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2024, 04:21:24 PMWhat are the practical implications of this thing?

Are the States going to obstruct federal officials? Stop co-operating with them? And if so, in what way?

Or is it pure theatre at this point?

According to Abbot's claimed citation (which is, probably unintentionally, ironic given that he is citing those powers  explicitly denied to the states), the power he is seizing is the power for Texas to independently wage war.  There's just the tiniest chance that this claim is pure theater.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Tonitrus

Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2024, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on January 25, 2024, 03:11:42 AMSo far: Florida, Virginia, Oklahoma, Montana, Arkansas, Georgia, and South Dakota have all announced they stand with Texas




Tonitrus

Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2024, 02:57:59 PMSo Abbot is claiming that Texas has "constitutional rights" and is acting on a "quote" from Article ! Section 10 that is not actually in the Constitution?

Which article of the Texas state constitution allows the governor to just make shit up and give it the force of law?

And he also seems to explicitly contradict Article VI.

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2024, 03:06:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2024, 08:34:57 AMLet's not get so excited just because a fatuous jackass like Abbott writes a one-page letter.  Who knows perhaps one day someone will teach him that dissenting Supreme Court opinions are not precedential.
Although - and obviously I know very little on this - that case sounds like it definitely shouldn't have been 5-4. Or am I wrong?

There were 3 dissenters - Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.  Thomas dissented because he objects wholesale to the concept of federal pre-emption unless the law in question specifically states - "the following state laws are pre-empted."  Alito dissented because although he accepted the basic framework of federal pre-emption analysis, he disagreed with its application to two of the challenged sections.  Scalia was the only one to go off the rails with a rant about state "sovereign" powers.

Scalia's dissenting opinion in that case is interesting for other reasons, however, that he probably did not intend.  First, in his zeal to argue about inherent state sovereign powers over immigration, he exposed the historical reality that many Americans of the founding generation did not believe the Constitution gave the federal government power to control immigration at all (as opposed to naturalization) - a position that follows pretty obviously from a purely textual reading. 

Second, he exposed the flim-flammery involved in "originalist" doctrine, in his attempt to argue that states historically had " enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens." His examples show otherwise:
+ laws about screening for contagious diseases - these were public health regulations, not immigration policy.
+ laws about excluding convicts - these were public safety regs.
+ laws about excluding free blacks - these were Southern laws enforcing slave codes.

Basically until the 1880s, anyone without a known criminal record could enter the country without restriction if free from contagious disease. No one thought of restricting immigration on policy grounds until the racist Chinese exclusion laws of the 1880s.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Tamas

Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2024, 03:24:18 AMIs this one about States' rights?

Two civil wars over being afraid of coloured people seems a bit excessive.

The Minsky Moment

Anytime you hear the word "sovereign" or "sovereingty" in an American legal context, hold tightly to your intellectual wallet, especially if it comes from a self-proclaimed "originalist".  The concept's main historical use in American law has been to make up powers that don't exist in the Constitution.

The word sovereign of course refers to the powers of a King, the very thing the American Revolution overthrew.  The word does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.  If there is anything that resembles a sovereign in the American system it is "We the People" and nothing else. The federal government is not a sovereign by definition, it is a limited government of enumerated powers.  The states are certainly not sovereign as the scope of their authority is limited both by specific constitutional limitations and the federal supremacy clause.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

The Brain

To be fair though, many states are Stupid. This grants them wide powers of asshattery.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.