🇳🇱
@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec
Yes but in the house the vote strongly favors california. It makes sense to me that the house shoukd be balanced for population and the senate flat. It ensures there must be both a majority acceptance, and a state-majority acceptance to pass new laws...
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec California has 30% more people than the second most populous state. For a vote to favor California is a sign that people are being properly represented. (And I don't like it any more than you; even living in the land of Florida Man, I think California is bonkers.)
Honestly, the better answer, in my opinion, would be to break up both California and Texas into into about three states each. That would allow better representation of the people in their local areas, instead of being lumped in with 40 million others.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Right, because they have more people. If you're measuring a vote by both number of people and breaking it down by geographic regions, then a fair vote should logically "favor" the geographic region with the most voters. That's simple statistics, not a problem to be solved.
Yes its about balancing the two... States each have their own laws, their own governance and their own cultures (to an extent)...A state is more like a country in some ways.
Its a bit like saying the USA should be able to dictate what the middle east can do in the UN simply because we have more people... If a state wants to keep its population down, and its people are **responsible** enough to keep a low population which is healthier for the people and environment, they shouldnt be penalized for it... It makes a great deal of sense that each state gets its own vote that is only partly weighted by population, and partly flat.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec I strongly disagree. Weighting votes by population density doesn't seem that far off from weighting votes by skin color. It gives unfair preference to certain people just because they were lucky enough to be born into a certain culture.
Having your vote be worth the same as your fellow countrymen's isn't a "punishment" just because you don't have enough like-minded people around to win.
There needs to be a way to protect states rights, to ensure larger states cant bullt smaller states into changing their laws... I am ok with any solution that does this, what we have is the best I know of so far.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Why should states' rights override humans' rights?
They shouldnt, which is why within a state every person should have an equal vote for representation in that state. Therefore everyone has equal rights, and each state has fair representation as well without being overhelmed by the will of other states.
This is hardly a new concept, it is the way virtually every union of member states operates, with each state fairly electing its own governnance and then those respected governments each representing themselves in the greater union.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Also, it is not the "way virtually every union of member states operates". It is, in fact, the way very few of them operate.
Thats a link to democracies, not unions, so not related... UNIONS all operate this way whether its the EU, the UN, or NATO.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec All non-tiny countries are unions of subdivided geography and culture.
And the EU, UN, and NATO, aren't comparable to the US. Those are alliances, not sovereign countries.
A union is a very specific thing... having lots of cultures and geography is not a union.. a union is a collection of nation-states.. I listed the three examples of unions that are most noted, there arent oo many others (the UK can be considered one but it is so irregular many of its members are barely treated like members, like canada, so its just not a good example).
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Then the US doesn't qualify as a union. Our states are not "nation-states". They are not sovereign, they do not have their own militaries, they do not engage in their own diplomacy.
We very much are a union of states. This has been well established since the earliest days of the USA.
There are also tons of countries that font follow your criteria (for example countries with no military, and which dont engage in their own diplomacy). None of that is required to be considered a state.
@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec
Oh and states in the USA **are** considered to have their own sovereignty.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec No, they absolutely do not. By definition, they gave that up to join the union.
Nope state soverignty is explicitly recognized by the supreme court of the united states. It is said to be garunteed by the 10th amendment.
One such quote:
"But the Court found that “there are attributes of sovereignty attaching to every state government which may not be impaired by Congress, not because Congress may lack an affirmative grant of legislative authority to reach the matter, but because the Constitution prohibits it from exercising the authority in that manner.”
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec That term, "state sovereignty", describes what sovereignty is left to the states after the rest has been taken by the feds, as defined in our constitution. It describes the *limits* of their sovereignty. It is not a declaration of their sovereignty, which would require them to be wholly independent, by definition.
No you are thinking of a specific type of sovereignty called "Westphalian sovereignty".. not all sovereignty means that there is no other authority or no complex hierarchy... that is the colloqual use of the term, but int he case of unions it is more nuanced.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Every dictionary I can find disagrees with you.
Thats what happens when you look up non-technical definitions and ignore the nuance of types ofg legal sovreignty...
I have shared with you legal links that explicitly state that states int ehUSA are conisdered **legally** to be sovreign... I have also given you examples of this manifesting re: cannabis laws.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec No, you didn't. The link you sent earlier described the limits on their sovereignty.
Yes it described the limits on **their sovreignty**... it explicitly stated they were sovreign and the nature of that sovreignty, namely, where and how it applies.
@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec
Its not complicated... if you break federal law but do so within the confines of a state then the federal governemtn cant legally act.. you must be tried by the state, and if hte state laws make what you did legal, then your found innocent regardless of federal law.
We see this constantly with all sorts of laws, namely cannabis. Federally illegal but you can literally safely sell it in the open without the federal government doing anything about it... why.. state sovreignty.
@freemo @thegonzoism That's just not true. If it were, then most federal laws would be unenforceable.
The reason most federal laws are enforcable is because they are recognized by the state, so the state will enforce them. In the case of cannabis laws the states refuse to nenforce the federal laws and thus most growers and sellers are untouchable.
By the way this is exactly why most cannabis sellers in legalized states cant use credit cards.. Credit cards cause commerse to go across state lines since the credit card companies operate internationally.. so simply taking credit cards is usually enough for the feds to be able to swoop in... But again as long as they are careful to not operate in any way across state lines they are safe due to the sovereignty of the state.
@freemo @thegonzoism No, it's because credit card companies and banks refuse to work with them because they don't want to risk violating federal law.
That would make no sense since you can use your debit card to make purchases so long as your bank is a local state bank (I do it all the time)...
But your right, banks that operate across states would get in trouble, which is exactly what I just said... but the banks that dont operate across states are free to do so. Which is why i cant use my visa when i buy it but i can use my local debit card just fine.
@freemo @thegonzoism I'm calling bullshit on that. Most debit cards are run by the same companies as the credit cards. My local bank debit cards are Visas. That sounds like they're just trying to avoid credit card fees rather than the law.
@freemo @thegonzoism Also... I don't think a vendor can limit which banks work for debit cards on merchant accounts. So, they'd have no way to limit it to "local state banks", and they'd have to be very careful to keep updated on which "local state banks" are actually local and which are owned elsewhere.
That whole claim just doesn't pass the smell test...
Not sure how they limit it, but they make it very clear with a list of banks they accept.. its like 20 banks or so they have on a piece of paper you see at checkout. They look at your debit card before swiping it, I suspect to check the bank, but I dunno.
@freemo @thegonzoism That sounds like they've established a pre-existing agreement with the banks on the list... Maybe most big banks will flag transactions with weed shops, causing the vendor's merchant account to get locked out, but maybe they've made a deal with these banks to not flag their transactions?
That is very strange, though.
I've got a few connections with people who run grow houses and dispensaries.... its pretty common to avoid inter-state transactions for the reasons I've mentioned.
@freemo @thegonzoism Well, yeah, because that makes you more likely to be targeted by the feds, for any type of crime. But I'm still pretty sure it's not a prerequisite to being targeted.
The feds only have two ways to act on cannabis.. 1) you commit a cannbis crime across state boundaries 2) they sue the state itself in federal court.
@freemo @thegonzoism Yeah, gonna need a citation on that. If it were true, there'd be a precedent saying so.
Oh I am sure there are sources out there... I just dont have any and im not a lawyer so i wouldnt know where to look... My understanding comes from hours of lecturing by actual lawyers with my involvement int he cannabis industry.
Correct there are other ways, all of which in some way deal with inter-state politics...
For example large operations for drugs gives probable cause that at least some of those drugs make it into other states.
Drug dcimes committed on federal property is considered federal jurisdiction
So yea there are quite a few ways, all of them boil down to the crime your committing extends outside of your state in one way or another.
@freemo @thegonzoism "large operations for drugs gives probable cause that at least some of those drugs make it into other states" is one hell of a stretch. I'm still calling bullshit that it's a prerequisite.
Prioritizing factor? Sure.
Legal prerequisite for enforcement? Bullshit.
Here is a page that explains when the federal courts have jurisdiction:
@freemo @thegonzoism Right, and any criminal prosecution of a violation of federal law would qualify for the first point, whether or not it involved interstate commerce.
So here is one law source that mentions it breifly:
Federal laws generally focus on movement across state borders, such as drug trafficking.
For example, if you cross state lines with a large quantity of a controlled substance, you may be charged with the federal offense of drug trafficking. You may also be charged with a federal drug offense if you are caught selling drugs on government property.
Or, you may face federal drug selling charges if you sell and transport drugs using the United States Post Office or a private mail carrier.
State laws focus on possession and manufacturing.
https://nhassanlaw.com/criminal-defense/when-is-selling-drugs-a-federal-offense-vs-a-state-crime/
@freemo @thegonzoism The controlled substances act, which the DEA enforces, outlaws "manufacture, importation, possession, use, and distribution".
It's not a difference in the laws. It's a difference in what's significant enough to get the attention of the feds and their resources.
Small-time stuff is handled by locals and big-time stuff is handled by the feds.
Just because the feds choose not to enforce smaller busts doesn't mean they don't have the jurisdiction to do so.
And it definitely doesn't mean that states are sovereign.
If you want to argue with lawyers i dunno what to tell you... the feds cant enter a state and act as their police force for matters that are not federal jurisdiction. Not unless the state allows it.
There are a few explicit exceptions (like bankrupcy cases) where federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, but as many legal pages state this is limited to situations where the senate has made excplicit exceptions. The page explains sone of this.
@freemo @thegonzoism I'm not arguing with a lawyer, I'm arguing with your misinterpretation of a lawyer. I posted two links earlier from legal teams that supported my point. Why does your one link invalidate both of them?
The page was pretty clear about the feds only being involved when it crosses state lines.
Even your own links line up with the fact that it must effect other states to be a problem... hell even the DOJ memo itself says it only cares about large operations where the drugs are expected to cross state lines, that was their own wording.
Your stuck in confirmation bias at this point. I just wish i coukd find a source talking about it directly.
It doesnt. Your link states cases of federal jurisdiction where the crimes have effects outside of the state, as we covered. The dojs memo even states this when talking about large drug operations refering to their potential to bleed into other states.
Well we got a bit off track.. lets back up a second since yo uwont accept this particular example... We are talking about state sovreignty... well I linked a paper before and you should read it (re linked below)... it answers your question in detail, why are the states considered sovreign.
At the end it goes into some detail as to what properties give it sovreignty and what the properties are of soverignty more generally (at least according to some political scholars):
Those properties are:
1) the rule of preservation - In other words the federal government can not dissolve a state or split it, only a state can do this on its own.
2) The rule of separateness - In other words the federal government can not dictate to the states how they form their own internal governance
3) The rule of participation - The federal government can not exclude a state or restrict it from participation in the federal governement. Though it can decide who will become a state, once a state is a state those powers can be revoked.
4) The rule of interpretive independence - Thsi sets forth the jurisdiction issues we already discussed but you refused to accept.. but generally that the state has jurisdiction to interpret the laws within its own state and its court has jurisdiction over this.
Going back to the point of sovereignty as its original definition as you shared "absolute control and autonomy"... well in the USA sovereignty is split. The federal government doesnt have it because they can not do certain things, and thus dont have absolute power (points 1 - 4 are powers the federal government doesnt have over states and states are sovereign in those regards).
That is why when we talk about sovereignty without any adjectives before it we say that sovereignty int he USA is shared between the federal and state governments, each taking a piece of the pie and only collectively can their powers be seen as sovereign as a whole.
@freemo @thegonzoism These two law firm sources say that interstate commerce is just one reason of many why a drug crime can be enforced federally:
https://fresnocriminallawyer.com/when-are-drug-crimes-considered-federal-offenses/
https://www.bernelawme.com/differences-between-state-and-federal-drug-crimes/
And this is the FBI's website saying federal agents have full jurisdiction to make arrests for any felony violation of US law.
https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-authority-do-fbi-special-agents-have-to-make-arrests-in-the-united-states-its-territories-or-on-foreign-soil