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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
But mostly to those who give something back to the check writers. The government equivalent to giving you a table with a view if you promise to leave a good review on Yelp.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Restricting voting isn't a moral evil lol. We can and should haggle about the voting age, but it's probably wise that we don't allow 2 year olds to vote.
Also the Bill of rights is basically just a list of shit that we're not allowed to vote on anymore (Yes, I know that amendments can be repealed, but it's quite cumbersome).
Idk, just this over-glorification of democracy is odd to me. Honest question, when did small r republicanism go so out of style?
Restricting voting in this case is clearly meant as restricting voting of (legally aged) demographics that tend to skew Democrat. There's a reason Republican politicians are more likely to oppose mail-in voting even though it's a logical thing to implement in every state. We're not talking about letting dogs vote.
If we want this to be a more representative republic, we should make voting as easy as possible for everyone. So yes, it's restricting voting in this manner is pretty evil.
If a group of organized children have a big influence on a vote, maybe that's a good thing...
A simple way to allow children to vote while avoiding parental coercion (the only reasonably arguable downside) is to require them to complete the ballot without the assistance of a parent/guardian.
To be fair, Democrats gerrymander just as much. I’m not saying it’s okay. But I don’t think spouting partisan talking points makes for interesting or constructive conversation on HN.
I was trying to say this isn’t the thread or the forum for this discussion IMO. If you really want to discuss, please email me: henriquez@protonmail.com
The biggest gerrymander is the electoral college, perpetrated by the low population states, which happen to be Republican at the moment.
The Republican Party is the one constantly being got with explicit voter suppression project planning documents and winning elections and seats in inverse proportion to their share of votes.
Which policies are instituted decide with a large effect who and how much are killed by the virus. Deciding the implementations of those policies, is in fact politics.
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?
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..
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?
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).
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:
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.
Do states have the power to riot and say “we’re not going to pay federal taxes, because well ... the federal government did fuck all and gave us the middle finger when we most needed them”
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.
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.
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
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".
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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).
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...