> The people radicalized to these actions are trying to destroy the government.
The federal government, right? They are in favor of state and local government, but object to federal, which they assert reduces the ability for states to have different rules and regulations that can drive competition amongst different legal frameworks.
This seems unclear. For example, the Department of Transportation just told NY they have to shut down the new (and apparently relatively successful) congestion pricing [1] in NYC. (As with some other things being torn down by the administration, apparently the rules say the government cannot do this.)
So it appears, at least, that the administration doesn't actually respect states' rights and is looking to take over everything.
I'd be interested in understanding the property rights of the roads they were taxing. Were they taxing highways that had some covenants or contract ensuring toll free passage? I'm unfamiliar with the contract made for federally matched roads but it wouldn't surprise me if there's an agreement you can't just turn it into a toll road by calling it a new tax.
“ In a letter to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that the federal government has jurisdiction over highways leading to Manhattan and that the additional tolls posed an unfair burden for motorists outside the city.”
However that seems like a dubious claim (Google results report the highways around Manhattan are operated by the state of NY, however New Jersey is adjacent).
I wonder if they could get around that by making the prices balance to zero? Like charge fees to people during congestion times and pay those fees outdistributed equally amongst those who enter during non congestion.
Then there would be no net revenue/toll. The optics would also be far better than green washing a net toll on people driving in from outside the city/state.
Charging people from outside the area so that they are less likely to come in a personal vehicle is one of the direct goals of congestion pricing. It isn't an environmental program, it's a traffic management program and isn't greenwashing anything.
You can call it whatever you like. I didn't say it was an environmental program, it is first and foremost a revenue generation program under a clever guise to dupe towards political leaning of new yorkers.
You can read their own description, they green wash advertising cleaner air, less emissions, etc.
They didn’t need to dupe anyone; the program is indisputably not popular and they implemented it anyway. The two goals of congestion pricing have always been to generate revenue for the MTA and reduce congestion/pollution in Manhattan. They never hid that. Most transit advocates support both of those goals, and the beauty of congestion pricing (as opposed to a revenue-only option like an extra tax on businesses in the congestion zone) is that it can accomplish both at once.
I’d also note that popularity has been going up as everyone sees the benefits immediately and the predictions of a business meltdown turned out not to be true. It feels very similar to the bans on indoor smoking where smokers predicted restaurants and bars would close and the opposite happened.
What is harder to fight against, however, is when they make deals with corrupt officials (looking at you democratic NYC Mayor, Mr Adams) to get what they want: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80yrglnn79o
> They are in favor of state and local government, but object to federal, which they assert reduces the ability for states to have different rules and regulations that can drive competition amongst different legal frameworks.
As demonstrated by efforts to prevent state and local governments from acting independently...
You want to distinguish between favoring federalism VS favoring the policies/culture/etc. of specific states.
So yeah; they are in favor of more state government in lieu of federal, even though they hate certain states’ policies. I think that’s obvious. Now, the question is whether or not they will succeed in handicapping states’ autonomy when they disagree with things. My take is they will try (and have tried), but it isn’t a foregone conclusion that they will succeed. There’s soft power and there’s violence, and I’m optimistic that it will be more the former.
An opposite question is interesting: why not abolish state governments and only have the federal government? I haven’t thought about it deeply so don’t have a strong sense that it would be better than the status quo, though I suspect it might.
Centralization and size comes with inefficiency and slow decision making. It also comes with economies of scale. For something like the Medicare, the economy of scale dominates and it makes much more sense to be federal. When it comes to running schools, there really isn't much economy of scale so it makes much more sense to run it locally.
Economies (and diseconomies) of scale exist, of course, but aren't central to what is the responsibility of the federal government and what is the responsibility of the state governments. That, of course, is laid out rather plainly in the founding legal document of the country.
The more people are ruled by a single government that is ostensibly a representative democracy, the less representative said democracy actually is. This should be rather evident - you can't grow parliament size indefinitely if you want it to continue functioning as a deliberative chamber, which in turn means that every parliamentarian represents more and more people, which in practice means that they don't represent them well.
The Civil War settled that the feds could rule over the explicitly authorized powers of the federal government. In the 30s the feds reneged and decided blatantly unconstitutional stuff like the (later passed) Civil rights act could hold if they just call everything interstate commerce.
When the US falls apart this will be a likely central focus .
CRA under the 1875 version was found unconstitutional per the Civil Rights Cases of the Supreme court [0].
In the 1930s the executive threatened to pack the supreme court and many analogous private/intrastate commerce regulations were allowed federally by this bastardization of 'interstate commerce' by the court. Then they repassed the CRA with yet again stuff found unconstitutional, using their new version of 'interstate commerce' (everything).
The CRA objectively has been found unconstitutional by the Supreme court, and I believe it may be again under the latest generation of the court.
so, probably restating what you said, if someone wanted to pass something like that, a constitutional amendment is the better way since relying on interstate commerce clause is shaky ground... is that right interpretation?
Indeed. It should be noted that the Commerce Clause underpins most federal powers at this point. This is one of the big reasons why it's such a sacred cow - its ridiculousness is rather obvious, but all players have important things that depend on it that they don't want to risk losing.
They to have just enough government for them to extract as much wealth as possible. States rights is about them doing whatever they want without interference.
The US had a civil war that its defenders describe as being about "states' rights", with the most important right of all being the ability to literally own other people as property.
Make America Great Again is a about returning to those glory days.
Slavery was never actually banned. The 13th Amendment leaves a Death Star sized loophole.
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I do not find it strange or otherwise see it as a loophole that duly convicted prisoners pay some of their debt to society by being forced to do labor.
It at least hinges on what people are convicted of being things that "deserve" slavery. Not all agree that possession of drugs for personal use meets that. Or performing or having an abortion. What if the government turns full Russia and makes political dissent illegal? Or championing/practicing "non traditional family values" like LGBT?
There is also a moral hazard in being able to earn money on prison labor, as it incentives putting people in prison.
I agree that the moral hazard is there, and it's fraught with potential for abuse[0]. But prison labor also has the potential to teach convicts skills and discipline that would be useful after their sentence.
> Not all agree that possession of drugs for personal use meets that. [...]
I'm not sure if you're saying that there is disagreement in society about what things constitute crimes, or that there should be a difference in how we treat convicted prisoners on what they were convicted on?
On its face, I'm not sure why, say, someone convicted of manslaughter is "deserving" of being made to do labor and someone convicted of, say, felony reckless driving is not, or vice versa. But I'm sure there are arguments to be made in either case.
[0]: Like the "Kids for cash" scandal in Pennsylvania, though I'm not sure if there was a labor component involved there and not just a per-prisoner payment (which is just as bad).
The vast majority of slavery historically is this. While I can't say I disagree with you, it's also awkward because you must then conclude that the vast majority of slavery historically was "okay"/"justified". Clearly some subjectivity and subtlety is needed.
Yesterday, Trump announced he was killing congestion pricing in New York City. A program set up by the state of New York, to help fund infrastructure in New York.
Seems like an issue that should be left to the state, and yet here they are asserting federal authority over it.
I’m not that familiar with US politics but I read that this was more a symbolic move and he actually can’t influence this law since as you pointed out it’s a matter of the New York state. He can announce things all day, which is exactly the strategy - do at least 5 ridiculous things every day and the media/people can’t react fast enough — bury them in shit
He is just a tell is how enablers made all these people sound innocent and their detractors crazy. At this point I believe it was often deliberate strategy. Plus crazy paranoid were actually 100% correct over years.
Like many things in US politics, “it’s complicated.” The program had to get approval from the federal government (which was granted by the Biden administration), it’s now up to the courts if Trump can rescind that approval.
The point is that saying power should go back to the states is really just a talking point conservatives use when it’s convenient for them, not actually a strongheld belief that guides their actions in any way.
Louisiana wants to punish a New York doctor for prescribing medicine. Project 2025 in general wants to ban and criminalize medication abortion nationwide.
If I kept a running list of all the ways conservatives preach states right but don't really practice it, I wouldn't have much time to do anything else.
And "states rights" has been coded language anyway. Refer to Lee Atwater 1981 interview. Now the coded language has focused attention on "DEI", "trans", among other things.
That states' rights were claimed to keep slavery, or any other morally reprehensible thing, does not mean that the concept of states' rights is wrong. It means slavery and other morally reprehensible things are wrong.
Of course, at any given time, there exist a number of issues facing the public over which there is no clear consensus on whether they constitute something morally reprehensible.
You're making the argument that what the federal government decides is right is always or usually the right thing compared to what states are claiming. I challenge you to claim that this is the case for, say, federal law forbidding marijuana versus states allowing it, or as was the case until very recently, enthusiastic support for pediatric gender reassignment from the federal government versus states outlawing it.
They are making the point that "states rights" is empty hypocritical talking point. It is meant to win argument by pretending you care about something you don't.
Everybody knows "state rights" imply conservative policies, but don't apply to anyone else.
> Everybody knows "state rights" imply conservative policies, but don't apply to anyone else.
Is that right? Has there been a widespread backlash on the states' rights grounds against, say, Colorado or Massachusetts legalizing marijuana despite it being classified as a Schedule I drug federally with no acceptable use?
How about sanctuary city or state laws? Those in support of such policies base it on the concept of shared sovereignty between federal vs. state and local governments, i.e. states' rights. So there's clearly liberal or progressive uses of states' rights, in addition to conservative uses.
>You're making the argument that what the federal government decides is right is always or usually the right thing compared to what states are claiming.
Nope. The word I used is "usually." Go back and read it. You're the one who decided to replace that "usually" with "always" and I'm not obligated to play the strawman role for you.
When states make a special case out of states' rights it's usually not for a good reason, otherwise they could just pass state laws. States' rights arguments imply things the Federal government would be opposed to, that states would need to weaken the power of the Federal government to accomplish, usually where regulations or anti-discrimination laws are concerned.
If they were in favor of state and local government, why is the federal government threatening to sue California for admissions in the UC system and demanding that NYC's congestion pricing be ended or else lose federal funding? Why are faculty members at state universities being forced to change their research because it is on a verboten topic?
The idea that Trump, Musk, or anybody involved in leadership of Trump's administration care about state and local government authority is, frankly, fucking ludicrous.
The federal government, right? They are in favor of state and local government, but object to federal, which they assert reduces the ability for states to have different rules and regulations that can drive competition amongst different legal frameworks.