Gavin Newsom Declares California a ‘Nation-State’(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Gavin Newsom Declares California a ‘Nation-State’
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-09/california-declares-independence-from-trump-s-coronavirus-plans
96 comments
Ok, bye! Been super fun!
That's either poor wording, or treason (or insurrection, if you prefer).
It is neither. A nation is a social construct, and the federal government is just that: a federation (of states). Saying California is a nation-state is perfectly legal and a reasonable position to have.
Of course I don’t think it’s treason, but it is likely a deliberate non-standard use the term. “Nation-state” is widely used to refer to nations which act as sovereign states on the international stage. US states are not widely viewed as sovereign states, largely because their ability to enter into direct relationships with other countries is largely limited.
I think Newsom is trying to convey that California will act as a sovereign state on the international stage, in an economic capacity. He may even be engaging in diplomatic missions to secure necessary protective equipment. Treaties are not the only way to be an international actor. California's capacity to make credible commitments is severely limited by the constitutional restrictions on states ability to enter contracts with foreign actors, but that may not be enough to stop Newsom from forging informal agreements.
Does that make Google or Apple a nation-state? They can make large international purchases too.
They have no territory, government, or national identity.
> the federal government is just that: a federation (of states).
Sure: initially, the US was initially imagined much closer to the current European Union. That was a long time ago: a lot has changed.
> Saying California is a nation-state is perfectly legal and a reasonable position to have.
Not since the civil war it isn't.
Sure: initially, the US was initially imagined much closer to the current European Union. That was a long time ago: a lot has changed.
> Saying California is a nation-state is perfectly legal and a reasonable position to have.
Not since the civil war it isn't.
>a lot has changed
And a lot can change again. Last time the lines shifted seriously was the great depression. Seems like crisis is a catalyst for shifts in power structures...
>Not since the civil war it isn't.
Unless trump is planning on arresting governors brown and Newsom, along with dozens of former and current California legislators, this is a toothless threat.
California is a nation state. Think that is treason? Run up. 33.7166357, -118.0594170
And a lot can change again. Last time the lines shifted seriously was the great depression. Seems like crisis is a catalyst for shifts in power structures...
>Not since the civil war it isn't.
Unless trump is planning on arresting governors brown and Newsom, along with dozens of former and current California legislators, this is a toothless threat.
California is a nation state. Think that is treason? Run up. 33.7166357, -118.0594170
Saying that you can survive defying federal sovereignty doesn't prove that you aren't defying federal sovereignty.
Saying that a war defines what is legal or illegal implies that the letter of the law is unimportant, only how the law is enforced.
Individual American states are still, by law, sovereign. They're subject to but independent of the federal government. That's why stay at home orders have been going state-by-state, for example; the President has no general authority to tell the citizens of California what to do.
“Sovereign state” is a widely used term in international politics. It is widely accepted to refer to states at the international level which are largely independent and are capable of international relationships. One of the main limitations of US states is that only the federal government can conduct international relations.
Fair, that wasn't a good word for me to pick. But I think Newsom's "nation state" is still fair; it's a nation (Californians have a group identity) and a state (it has broad independent power to decide how it'll handle matters of governance).
That slow saying that California is "in" the US, and it's "dependent" on the US so it's "independent".
And anyway Californians have no group identity beyond the political connection to the state government. They aren't an ethnic group or a religious group or bound by a common culture regardless of the political border. That's the main distinction between a (non-government) "nation" and a (government) "state".
And anyway Californians have no group identity beyond the political connection to the state government. They aren't an ethnic group or a religious group or bound by a common culture regardless of the political border. That's the main distinction between a (non-government) "nation" and a (government) "state".
But they'll flee to Texas at the drop of a hat when they see how far their housing dollars will go. That makes California suspect as a national identity.
Seems like if that were true then housing costs in CA would go down, and then people would move back, and then they would go up until, well, an equilibrium is reached where people are paying what they're able and willing to pay to live somewhere.
But again, "nation-state" is a widely used term with a widely accepted definition. That definitely is not "any region with any amount of group identity that also contains a government."
Not legal or not reasonable?
Neither.
At a practical level, the law is not that which is written down, but what is enforced.
The Confederate states may have had good textual arguments why it was legal for them to secede from the US. However, they were conquered. Their claims were ultimately meaningless because they could not defend themselves.
In the intervening years, the federal government has only gotten stronger. See this [1] discussion of the Little Rock Nine - particularly around the use of the National Guard as an example.
At a practical level, I don't think anything will come of this, but only because California isn't trying to exercise sovereign power.
___
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
At a practical level, the law is not that which is written down, but what is enforced.
The Confederate states may have had good textual arguments why it was legal for them to secede from the US. However, they were conquered. Their claims were ultimately meaningless because they could not defend themselves.
In the intervening years, the federal government has only gotten stronger. See this [1] discussion of the Little Rock Nine - particularly around the use of the National Guard as an example.
At a practical level, I don't think anything will come of this, but only because California isn't trying to exercise sovereign power.
___
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
I didn’t think the question was whether it was legal for California to defy federal laws or actually secede (which of course it wouldn’t be illegal ), but rather whether the official making the claim in words (but not actions) that California is a “nation state” was legal
> whether the official making the claim in words (but not actions) that California is a “nation state” was legal
IANAL
I have to imagine it is. The first amendment is quite broad. As long as no one is urging people to take concrete steps (e.g. don't pay federal income tax) I think pretty much anything is on the table.
IANAL
I have to imagine it is. The first amendment is quite broad. As long as no one is urging people to take concrete steps (e.g. don't pay federal income tax) I think pretty much anything is on the table.
I would say none of the above. The EU is a federation of “nation states.” Its just a matter of frames of reference.
California has a bigger economy than most countries and that does give them disproportionate clout in terms of shaping federal policy, as well as a ton of responsibilities that smaller states don’t have to deal with to the same degree.
California has a bigger economy than most countries and that does give them disproportionate clout in terms of shaping federal policy, as well as a ton of responsibilities that smaller states don’t have to deal with to the same degree.
this kind of "journalism" makes me sad.
In my view it's plainly an attempt to scratch an itch to validate our disappointment with the lack of empathy we see in GOP politics; but instead of expressing that, the author stokes hate and "other-ness" and encourages people to interpret words people say as evidence for their visions of extreme separatist versions of the future... which further breads more lack of empathy in others, and the spiral continues.
Fear mongering and visions of separatism exist on both sides of the party lines.
In my view it's plainly an attempt to scratch an itch to validate our disappointment with the lack of empathy we see in GOP politics; but instead of expressing that, the author stokes hate and "other-ness" and encourages people to interpret words people say as evidence for their visions of extreme separatist versions of the future... which further breads more lack of empathy in others, and the spiral continues.
Fear mongering and visions of separatism exist on both sides of the party lines.
redis_mlc(2)
bitexploder(1)
For those not familiar with US politics and culture, California is the the most influential on both.
Trends that start in California go nationwide in about 5 years.
So take what Governor Newsom says very seriously - it's a crystal ball.
Historically, the Governor of the State of California also has an outsized shot at being President. Reagan is one example, and the only reason The Terminator didn't run is because of citizenship requirements (he was born in Austria.)
You can bet President Newsom is in our future.
Trends that start in California go nationwide in about 5 years.
So take what Governor Newsom says very seriously - it's a crystal ball.
Historically, the Governor of the State of California also has an outsized shot at being President. Reagan is one example, and the only reason The Terminator didn't run is because of citizenship requirements (he was born in Austria.)
You can bet President Newsom is in our future.
What? There’s been one US president who was previously governor of California (Reagan) and one who unsuccessfully ran for governor (Nixon).
No other political candidate from California has even been nominated. We’ve had seven presidents from Ohio.
No other political candidate from California has even been nominated. We’ve had seven presidents from Ohio.
Newsom said the American presidency, "sounds like the worst job ever."
Not everyone seeks more power. Maybe Newsom is happy to lead a nation-state without a minority party blocking every initiative he would ever put forward.
Not everyone seeks more power. Maybe Newsom is happy to lead a nation-state without a minority party blocking every initiative he would ever put forward.
Several states have had a single governor later become President. New York is in the lead with 4 governors becoming President (FDR being the most recent).
[deleted]
I don't see any reason why state governors should sit around waiting for the federal government to provide masks and order emergency actions. The governors are empowered to do those things, and it's their job to do so.
In fact, California used to have a huge stockpile of medical supplies, put in place by Arnold (a Republican). It was abandoned under the Democratic Governors, and disposed of.
Edit: found the cite
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-27/coronavi...
In fact, California used to have a huge stockpile of medical supplies, put in place by Arnold (a Republican). It was abandoned under the Democratic Governors, and disposed of.
Edit: found the cite
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-27/coronavi...
Because it makes literally no sense for 50 states to compete and outbid each other for a scarce set of resources when you already have an umbrella organization, the Federal government, that could coordinate the purchases and the allocation as not every state is hitting the peak at the same time. But it's seemingly every state for themselves instead. A complete failure and lack of leadership and shirking of responsibility from the Federal government, directly contributing to a loss of American lives.
Washington State currently has surplus medical capacity and has been packaging it up and shipping it to states who need it.
If the governor of your state is doing nothing while blaming the federal, that's a problem with your governor. As I said, they have the power to do these things, and the responsibility to.
If the governor of your state is doing nothing while blaming the federal, that's a problem with your governor. As I said, they have the power to do these things, and the responsibility to.
Doesn't really absolve the federal government in any way. The United States has a Federal Emergency Management Agency which historically has stepped up to the plate during these types of situations.
In what way is this case different?
There are plenty of cases where states have been trying to follow the approach you suggest and have had their orders seized by the federal government. It seems like it's still quite unclear which approach states are supposed to follow so it seems perfectly reasonable for governors to be pointing fingers where the blame lies.
Colorado: https://www.denverpost.com/2020/04/04/coronavirus-colorado-p...
Los Angeles: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-04-07/hospitals-...
New Jersey: https://www.newjerseyhills.com/echoes-sentinel/news/somerset...
Broader piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/coronavirus-f...
In what way is this case different?
There are plenty of cases where states have been trying to follow the approach you suggest and have had their orders seized by the federal government. It seems like it's still quite unclear which approach states are supposed to follow so it seems perfectly reasonable for governors to be pointing fingers where the blame lies.
Colorado: https://www.denverpost.com/2020/04/04/coronavirus-colorado-p...
Los Angeles: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-04-07/hospitals-...
New Jersey: https://www.newjerseyhills.com/echoes-sentinel/news/somerset...
Broader piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/coronavirus-f...
If you want the feds to supply masks, they have to get them from somewhere. Furthermore, if you want the feds to supply masks, you'll get them at the discretion of the feds, not local authorities.
You're seeing what's wrong with centralized planning of things that don't need to be centralized.
You're seeing what's wrong with centralized planning of things that don't need to be centralized.
> You're seeing what's wrong with centralized planning of things that don't need to be centralized
Procuring masks on the market sure seemed to work out great for states in the earlier days of this incident:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2020/03/30/i-spent...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1245501506205421570.html
We started out with decentralization and now we've switched to something in between. Neither have worked.
Procuring masks on the market sure seemed to work out great for states in the earlier days of this incident:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2020/03/30/i-spent...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1245501506205421570.html
We started out with decentralization and now we've switched to something in between. Neither have worked.
> If you want the feds to supply masks, they have to get them from somewhere.
Just like the states, or counties or towns or households...
Except the federal government can order private businesses to manufacture whatever it needs, something no governor can do
Just like the states, or counties or towns or households...
Except the federal government can order private businesses to manufacture whatever it needs, something no governor can do
> something no governor can do
The idea the governor of a $222 billion budget can't get some masks made is a bit absurd.
The idea the governor of a $222 billion budget can't get some masks made is a bit absurd.
> The idea the governor of a $222 billion budget can’t get some masks is a bit absurd
The federal government just passed a $2 trillion stimulus package. And they’re thinking of doing another one.
And in addition to the power to print money, it can also order private industries to manufacture masks, tests, vaccines, ventilators, even tp
And it still can’t get the job done.
There are not enough masks or tests
The federal government just passed a $2 trillion stimulus package. And they’re thinking of doing another one.
And in addition to the power to print money, it can also order private industries to manufacture masks, tests, vaccines, ventilators, even tp
And it still can’t get the job done.
There are not enough masks or tests
> There are not enough masks or tests
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/22/21189881/apple-donating-m...
Maybe Tim Cook should run for Governor. Cook knows how to get stuff done, and he has no legal powers whatsoever compared to the Governor.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/22/21189881/apple-donating-m...
Maybe Tim Cook should run for Governor. Cook knows how to get stuff done, and he has no legal powers whatsoever compared to the Governor.
The federal government can order ventilators, but you need the part.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-24/ventilato...
It can also order or overpay for the creation of a successful vaccine, but you need data and time to see if it works.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-24/ventilato...
It can also order or overpay for the creation of a successful vaccine, but you need data and time to see if it works.
Sure. But how does that spur a car manufacturer that's never made ventilators, yet is trying to make them, move faster? We are going to send an army general to GM and all of the sudden we are going to crank out 60,000 ventilators?
When it comes to disasters, the Federal government's job is to write checks- they're the gov't equivalent of homeowner's insurance.
You may wish it were otherwise, but that is not how it is currently set up.
You may wish it were otherwise, but that is not how it is currently set up.
The federal government also hasn’t provided the confidence that aid won’t be given on a political basis.
Under a democracy, allocation of resources is always going to be driven by politics. Whether it aligns with facts, logic, greatest good, or science is purely arbitrary.
Not quite. "Driven by politics" doesn't mean that significant deviations from rational management shouldn't cause criticism, attempts - successful or not - to do things around federals and some formal complaints (lawsuits). The latter is a democratic way not to abuse the political driver.
It being political doesn't mean you can't criticize it. Get enough people to agree with you, and you can get change. But that's politics - not reason, logic, or science.
> a scarce set of resources
Making paper masks and gowns is not like building an aircraft carrier.
Making paper masks and gowns is not like building an aircraft carrier.
In a crisis like this, their job is to do _everything_ in their power to support their people. This involves lots of domestic action, which I think we are seeing.
What this also entails is that if there's federal resources, they should be doing everything in their power to secure them too.
What this also entails is that if there's federal resources, they should be doing everything in their power to secure them too.
Governor Newsom refers to California as a "nation state" about once a week, in case the author was wondering. He's used that language quite often.
I'm totally ok with it, so long as the Federal government remains impotent and balks at California's efforts to manage itself, while simultaneously being run by the party of "states rights." Purely in spite of the lack of leadership and outright derision for our needs as a state, regardless of being home to over a tenth of the population and being our breadbasket and technological power house.
I know not all Californians agree on everything, but I think we can all come together and recognize that we do have to look out for our state as if it was an independent nation these days. Because the Feds aren't going to help us when we need it, just tax us and tell us we can't have proportional representation.
I'm totally ok with it, so long as the Federal government remains impotent and balks at California's efforts to manage itself, while simultaneously being run by the party of "states rights." Purely in spite of the lack of leadership and outright derision for our needs as a state, regardless of being home to over a tenth of the population and being our breadbasket and technological power house.
I know not all Californians agree on everything, but I think we can all come together and recognize that we do have to look out for our state as if it was an independent nation these days. Because the Feds aren't going to help us when we need it, just tax us and tell us we can't have proportional representation.
California has proportional representation in the House of Representatives.
California used to have proportional and geographic representation internally in a bicameral state legislature. Then came the Supreme Court's one man one vote ruling. Now southern California has pure proportional representation and gets all the fresh water it demands from northern California, environmental concerns be damned.
Be careful what you wish for.
California used to have proportional and geographic representation internally in a bicameral state legislature. Then came the Supreme Court's one man one vote ruling. Now southern California has pure proportional representation and gets all the fresh water it demands from northern California, environmental concerns be damned.
Be careful what you wish for.
I don't agree with that categorization of water issues in CA, but that's off topic.
And having proportional seating in the House isn't particularly meaningful, when it takes both the Senate and the Presidency to drive policy. Dirt doesn't vote, and frankly I don't see any argument for less than proportional representation that isn't predicated on the notion that some people are more equal than others. Any weighting of the voices can be done in the debate forum, but at the ballot box the only fair way to distribute power is equally. That goes for all levels of our representative democracy.
No system is perfect, it's just about making one that's more perfect. And I would strongly argue that our bicameral government designed by slave owners 250 years ago has both been continuously eroded (they never planned for the Executive and Congress to be in cahoots!), and could be drastically improved by expanding on the 9th/10th amendments and being reformed into a unicameral legislature and abolishing the electoral college.
And having proportional seating in the House isn't particularly meaningful, when it takes both the Senate and the Presidency to drive policy. Dirt doesn't vote, and frankly I don't see any argument for less than proportional representation that isn't predicated on the notion that some people are more equal than others. Any weighting of the voices can be done in the debate forum, but at the ballot box the only fair way to distribute power is equally. That goes for all levels of our representative democracy.
No system is perfect, it's just about making one that's more perfect. And I would strongly argue that our bicameral government designed by slave owners 250 years ago has both been continuously eroded (they never planned for the Executive and Congress to be in cahoots!), and could be drastically improved by expanding on the 9th/10th amendments and being reformed into a unicameral legislature and abolishing the electoral college.
> frankly I don't see any argument for less than proportional representation that isn't predicated on the notion that some people are more equal than others
Consider two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. That's why the Senate exists.
Consider two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. That's why the Senate exists.
How does the senate stop the strong from trampling the weak? Who are the strong and who are the weak? Are African Americans weak? Are poor people weak? How do the delineations of state lines interact or align with boundaries of power?
If there's a proposal that Nevada should be the nuclear dump site of the nation, how would the structure of the house or senate stop that kind of thing? What if Nevada is just a trading item between two powerful parties? What does the constitution even say about this?
Now we are seeing a situation where California flexes its economic capacity during an international emergency. What are other states supposed to do in light of that? It's either a central force steps in to stop logistical contest based on morally and strategically questionable context (which state has more money), or...? What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
What Gavin Newsom is implying here, IMO, is that there's responsibility (and thus power) being left on the table. Due to this vacuum, even Jeff Bezos or Jack Ma could step in. What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
If there's a proposal that Nevada should be the nuclear dump site of the nation, how would the structure of the house or senate stop that kind of thing? What if Nevada is just a trading item between two powerful parties? What does the constitution even say about this?
Now we are seeing a situation where California flexes its economic capacity during an international emergency. What are other states supposed to do in light of that? It's either a central force steps in to stop logistical contest based on morally and strategically questionable context (which state has more money), or...? What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
What Gavin Newsom is implying here, IMO, is that there's responsibility (and thus power) being left on the table. Due to this vacuum, even Jeff Bezos or Jack Ma could step in. What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
> Who are the strong and who are the weak?
The states with more population have more votes in the House, meaning they are the strong. The Senate stops Florida and California from eating Rhode Island for dinner.
It's not more complicated than that.
The states with more population have more votes in the House, meaning they are the strong. The Senate stops Florida and California from eating Rhode Island for dinner.
It's not more complicated than that.
> If there's a proposal that Nevada should be the nuclear dump site of the nation, how would the structure of the house or senate stop that kind of thing? What if Nevada is just a trading item between two powerful parties? What does the constitution even say about this?
> What Gavin Newsom is implying here, IMO, is that there's responsibility (and thus power) being left on the table. Due to this vacuum, even Jeff Bezos or Jack Ma could step in. What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
And how do the delineations of American states align to the delineations of the most salient lines of power in the US, such as money? How does it provide balance?
> What Gavin Newsom is implying here, IMO, is that there's responsibility (and thus power) being left on the table. Due to this vacuum, even Jeff Bezos or Jack Ma could step in. What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
And how do the delineations of American states align to the delineations of the most salient lines of power in the US, such as money? How does it provide balance?
> how would the structure of the house or senate stop that kind of thing?
All states have equal power in the Senate regardless of their population size.
All states have equal power in the Senate regardless of their population size.
I just talked about a scenario where the negotiation is between two parties and the proposal is a national site for nuclear waste in Nevada. And that's not a very nationally energizing issue, so that wouldn't even be a very interesting priority to be traded on.
I then talked about a scenario where during an international emergency its money that talks, even Jack Ma's money. What does having equal senate votes matter here?
We seem to be safeguarding some old boundary that fails to negotiate with the real lines of power. Party and Money.
I then talked about a scenario where during an international emergency its money that talks, even Jack Ma's money. What does having equal senate votes matter here?
We seem to be safeguarding some old boundary that fails to negotiate with the real lines of power. Party and Money.
The Senate exists to preserve slavery and other interests of the colonial aristocracy. This is basic history.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas%E2%80%93Nebraska_Act
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas%E2%80%93Nebraska_Act
Good thing we're not sheep or wolves. That's why I alluded to Orwell. The pigs from Animal Farm are a better metaphor.
The senate doesn't exist to protect the will of sheep at the hands of wolves. It exists because 250 years ago, the edit: New Jersey delegation wasn't willing to relinquish its equal power at the Constitutional Convention to a state like Virginia. Its never been about sheep and wolves, it's been about the political power of a political class that sought to concentrate as much of it as possible for themselves at the expense of others.
If you want a better way to look at it, it's a dozen wolves convincing a dozen sheep that the wolves should have twice the voting power on dinner because they have a bigger grazing area.
The senate doesn't exist to protect the will of sheep at the hands of wolves. It exists because 250 years ago, the edit: New Jersey delegation wasn't willing to relinquish its equal power at the Constitutional Convention to a state like Virginia. Its never been about sheep and wolves, it's been about the political power of a political class that sought to concentrate as much of it as possible for themselves at the expense of others.
If you want a better way to look at it, it's a dozen wolves convincing a dozen sheep that the wolves should have twice the voting power on dinner because they have a bigger grazing area.
> concentrate as much of it as possible for themselves at the expense of others
I.e. sheep and wolves.
I.e. sheep and wolves.
this isn't true. Since the house has been capped, it hasn't grown or hasn't been redistributed based on population changes. A person in Wymoing has more representation than a person in California.
No, they're right. We have 53/435 (12.18%) of the House, which is roughly equal to our proportion of the total population (40mm/330mm, 12.12%, numbers will change with the census).
The "at least one" rep has a bigger impact on some of the medium/small size states. My point was more on the senate/electoral college.
The "at least one" rep has a bigger impact on some of the medium/small size states. My point was more on the senate/electoral college.
jackfoxy's second paragraph was referring to the California House, not the US House. You're disagreeing with something he didn't say.
California's our breadbasket? Um, no. Salad bowl, perhaps, but that's not the same thing...
I wish there was a better method for deducting state taxes from federal, especially with Trumps repeated "States should handle this problem on their own" stance when 85% of my taxes are going to federal govt.
If 85% of your taxes are going to the federal government, you don't live in California.
This makes happy... because this is how things _are supposed to work_ in a Republic. Power was never supposed to be concentrated heavily at the Federal level. It's much easier to kick policies you don't like at state levels and not be ruled by people in physically/culturally distant areas.
This is not power. This is aid, planning, money, and ideally to show some semblance of leadership.
We have governors declaring they will seize medical equipment from its owners. We have mayors of major cities advocating for us to conscript medical personnel via the Selective Service. We have the President invoking the Defense Production Act and telling private companies to manufacture goods. We have governors and mayors and county-level medical officials across the nation outlawing religious services and declaring that it is illegal for people to leave their homes except under a list of officially approved circumstances.
Behold, the power.
Behold, the power.
I'd rather take on the commanding force [guard] of a US state than the federal government of the US. Again, it was designed this way intentionally.
The best thing that could happen to the United States would be an amicable divorce.
It is ridiculous to have national elections matter so much at the local level and come down to a few counties in a few contested states, remote from the vast majority of citizens.
Edit: It's heartening to see all the principled federalism and subsidiarity here in the HN comments. I'm sure it would be the same if a Democrat were in office and a Republican governer were talking this way, no?
It is ridiculous to have national elections matter so much at the local level and come down to a few counties in a few contested states, remote from the vast majority of citizens.
Edit: It's heartening to see all the principled federalism and subsidiarity here in the HN comments. I'm sure it would be the same if a Democrat were in office and a Republican governer were talking this way, no?
A small nation has less coordinated power and would get walked over by USSR and China.
If the US was 50 small nations in WWII, Hitler more likely would have won.
If the US was 50 small nations in WWII, Hitler more likely would have won.
France, Germany, etc all have their own armies but are part of the EU, and United Nations.
The states could be more like that.. a loose federation that only comes together in times of war but other than that the state decides their own constitutions, etc..and have their own presidents/etc..
The states could be more like that.. a loose federation that only comes together in times of war but other than that the state decides their own constitutions, etc..and have their own presidents/etc..
The media presents election results as if that is what happens, but most states are winner take all, county and district lines don't matter:
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-alloc...
Probably the simplest/most possible step forward would be to expand the House of Representatives by quite a bit.
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-alloc...
Probably the simplest/most possible step forward would be to expand the House of Representatives by quite a bit.
I've always liked the idea of flipping the tax situation so states keep the vast majority and the feds get peanuts - attacks the root of federal power.
How could CA accomplish that? I guess we need our own tax collection agency?
How could CA accomplish that? I guess we need our own tax collection agency?
California (as all states do) already has their own tax collection agency.
It would have to attempt to withdraw from the United States.
No. People would just have to vote politicians in that support more power at the state level. This has happened throughout US history.
Secession is unconstitutional, and no state has a military. In fact, the US military would already be there (and most troops stationed there likely wouldn't be from that state).
Secession is unconstitutional, and no state has a military. In fact, the US military would already be there (and most troops stationed there likely wouldn't be from that state).
"attempt"
I'm going to repeat my point, and try to expand a bit, to maybe make it clearer. To unilaterally change where taxes go, California would have to attempt to withdraw from the United States. There's no other mechanism for a state to directly reduce their federal tax burden.
Sure, people across the country could elect federal officials that were committed to reducing the importance of the federal government, but then it isn't California doing it, it's the whole US doing it.
I'm going to repeat my point, and try to expand a bit, to maybe make it clearer. To unilaterally change where taxes go, California would have to attempt to withdraw from the United States. There's no other mechanism for a state to directly reduce their federal tax burden.
Sure, people across the country could elect federal officials that were committed to reducing the importance of the federal government, but then it isn't California doing it, it's the whole US doing it.
Cities and also states will be in a precarious financial situation after this. There is a danger this allows for the federal government to exert further power and control. Since history often rhymes:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti...
Rather than a single state attempting to withdraw, it would likely have to be a coalition of states acting upon a unified effort for increased state rights. If representatives in NY/Tri-state, CA, IL, MA, etc. acted in unison, it would likely be more effective.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti...
Rather than a single state attempting to withdraw, it would likely have to be a coalition of states acting upon a unified effort for increased state rights. If representatives in NY/Tri-state, CA, IL, MA, etc. acted in unison, it would likely be more effective.
The pandemic from the start when Trump saying “its only one person, we totally have it in control” to the change of opinions on masks, to the lies really feels like a shit show.
Yet he has massive support. It baffles my mind.