[The Final Dakar]

You can't call it hypocrisy, because being for state's rights doesn't mean you are in favor of small government or less intrusion into daily lives. But I'm (unsurprisingly) dismayed and some of these moves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/us...-too-much.html

“The truth is, Texas is being California-ized, and you may not even be noticing it,” Mr. Abbott said in a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, just before he took office last month. “Large cities that represent about 75 percent of the population in this state are doing this to us. Unchecked overregulation by cities will turn the Texas miracle into the California nightmare.”

So-called pre-emption laws, passed in states across the country, have barred cities from regulating landlords, building municipal broadband systems and raising the minimum wage. In the last two years, eight Republican-dominated states, most recently Alabama and Oklahoma, have prevented cities from enacting paid sick leave for workers, and a new law in Arkansas forbids municipalities to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination.

Paid sick leave – a bridge too far.

Often these efforts are driven by industry, which finds it easier to wield influence in 50 capitols than in thousands of city halls, said Mark Pertschuk, the director of Grassroots Change, which opposes the pre-emption of public health measures.

“Businesses are operating in an already challenging regulatory environment,” said Scott DeFife, the head of government affairs for the National Restaurant Association. “The state legislature is the best place to determine wage and hour law. This is not the kind of policy that should be determined jurisdiction by jurisdiction.”

Pre-emption bills are not solely the province of Republicans. In 2010, Democrats in California blocked cities from requiring restaurants to label menus with nutritional information.

Nutritional information on what you're eating – a bridge too far

James Quintero, the director of the Center for Local Governance at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said the pre-emption of city power was “new to the conservative movement here in Texas.” Still, he was ready to counter accusations of hypocrisy: “What we’re arguing is that liberty, not local control, is the overriding principle that state and local policy makers should be using.”

“I think the less regulation, the better,” she said. “But there are times when we have to pass ordinances for the health and safety of our people. We’re here every day, and they’re in Austin once every two years.”

Texas cities have also tried a novel response to business complaints that varying local laws create a nightmare of bureaucracy. Because the state has failed to pass curbs on payday lenders, whose annual interest rates can top 300 percent, the Texas Municipal League encouraged cities to pass their own matching ordinances, creating what is effectively a statewide standard. By the league’s count, 20 cities have done so.

Impressive.

In Texas, many of the bills before the Legislature aim to prevent more cities from following Denton’s lead in banning hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Representative Phil King, a Republican representing a district near Denton and the national chairman of ALEC, has sponsored two pre-emption bills. The first bill would require local referendums to be certified by the state as legal, and the other would require an assessment of the cost, in tax revenue, of any local attempt to regulate oil and gas.

Sounds shady.

Mr. Huffines said the bill was being redrafted to make it easier to hold local governments accountable. “Local control is not a blank check,” he said, adding that local regulations and disregard for private property rights had, in his view, been a drag on the “Texas miracle” of economic growth for years.

[The Final Dakar]

Well, usually I'd make a big deal of my inability to make an interesting thread, but this has now become the exception rather than the rule. Can't win them all.

(Desperation Bump)

[reader50]

You left out the marijuana here.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by reader50 

You left out the marijuana here.

That's a different subject, IMO. We're dealing with States that outlaw things that are legal Federally, which I see as their purview. What becomes interesting and is who and why some of these laws are promoted. In some of the examples they seem to be explicitly made to repeal or prevent actions smaller sections of the state are enacting.

[Snow-i]

The idea is that a state government is much, much closer to it's people and their will then the Federal government.

If you screw up laws on a federal level, you have to deal with 50 states worth of special interest to effect any kind of change. Hence why Obamacare has been so hotly contested and is generally viewed unfavorably in the United States. Now we're all stuck with it, regardless of its impact on our particular homes states or the will of the people in those states. It takes away a degree of self determination without addressing the root cause of the problem it set out to solve. Compare that against Massachusetts and Romney care, which is largely successful as it's A) Self Determined and B) suited specifically for residents of Massachusetts.

A state need only govern itself, for better or worse.

I think why your thread may not have gotten off the ground is because the argument boils down to "freedom means free to make bad choices, else its not freedom" that a great many people can't wrap their heads around. If we force state's to govern by the will of the entire nation, each individual has just lost about roughly 50 orders of magnitute of self determination (loose approximation depending on representation nationwide).

Frankly, if you don't like the state you live in. Move. It's easier than it's ever been in this country. If you don't want to move, get active and vote.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The idea is that a state government is much, much closer to it's people and their will then the Federal government.

Right, and if you continue down that road, local is the closest to the will of the people.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think why your thread may not have gotten off the ground is because the argument boils down to "freedom means free to make bad choices, else its not freedom" that a great many people can't wrap their heads around.

I don't believe that's the argument at all. I believe the argument is "freedom means free to make choices you don't personally like" which these states seem to be in favor in for themselves versus the federal level, but not for localities under their purview.

What happened with Congress versus Washington D.C. this year is another perfect example of this.

[The Final Dakar]

Let me clarify: Perhaps your point originates from the thread title's mention of "self-determination" but within the context of the OP, it's clear I'm talking about how governance at levels lower than state, and how its handled by those who claim local governance is best governance when dealing with the federal government.

I'm not sure I cleared anything up there.

[BadKosh]

D.C. isn't a state. It was never intended to be a place where people lived, but where the seat of the federal government was. It became a place where people lived mostly due to the civil war, when the senators stayed in their offices and brought their slaves who inhabited many of the local buildings.

[The Final Dakar]

This took an interesting turn: Sheriffs sue Colorado over legal marijuana

Sheriffs from Colorado and neighboring states Kansas and Nebraska say in a lawsuit to be filed Thursday that Colorado's marijuana law creates a "crisis of conscience" by pitting the state law against the Constitution and puts an economic burden on other states.

...

Lead plaintiff, Larimer County, Colo., Sheriff Justin Smith, calls the case a "constitutional showdown." Each day, he says, he must decide whether to violate the Colorado Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Colorado legalized recreational marijuana sales Jan. 1, 2014, but marijuana remains illegal at the federal level.

Colorado is "asking every peace officer to violate their oath," Smith said. "What we're being forced to do ... makes me ineligible for office. Which constitution are we supposed to uphold?"

The lawsuit invokes the federal government's right to regulate drugs and interstate commerce and argues that Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana hurt communities on the other side of the state lines. Attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a similar lawsuit late last year.

The Justice Department said it would largely take a hands-off approach in states that have legalized marijuana as long as regulations seek to keep the drugs away from children and criminals. Smith, the sheriff from Larimer, said that guidance amounts to instructing people "how to violate federal law but not get prosecuted."

[el chupacabra]

… .

[The Final Shortcut]

You've done it to yourselves. I have seen zero movement in the US to limit political contributions to $1000.00 per entity - and possibly to completely eliminate corporate political donations as well. Once you people wrap your head around that concept, then you can tackle some of these problems with a fresh perspective.

Look, it won't stop corruption. That is inevitable. But 90% of all whining I see in the Pol Lounge somehow seems to stem from someone in power being paid off by special interest groups somewhere down the line.

Your system is a race to the largest treasure chest, and the sizes keep going up. It can't go on like this.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Anyway...
In Houston TX for example you have a very republican state, but people in the cities are as liberal as San Fran. To a large extent this is due to 'white flight' since in TX you can avoid taxes every time they increase just by moving outside city limits. It's become kind of a 'stick it to the mayor" every time they make a change the white flighters don't like. ie. Mayor makes changes, people leave for the burbs to avoid changes, city annexes burbs, people move further out... That factor is one of the things causing such a stark contrast in neighboring cultures.

I'm nt sure what you're saying is accurate. Everything I've read is the growing trend is minorities are moving to suburbs, and the white flight is back into the city.

---

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Look, it won't stop corruption. That is inevitable. But 90% of all whining I see in the Pol Lounge somehow seems to stem from someone in power being paid off by special interest groups somewhere down the line.

I dunno, you'd need to start a new thread for me to grasp the logic on the opposition. I suppose the most concise is money = speech and corporation are people, but the reality of what happens under both is the price of freedom or something. Or that all the money will exchange hands but now its transparent (where before if they got caught at least we could punish them). Or maybe something about Soros. Or just instinctual contrarianism. I dunno.

[el chupacabra]

.., .

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Anyway... These people outside city limits have no problem with the state government bullying the city around.

Such is politics, but my question is are they ok with the federal government doing the same to them?

[el chupacabra]

No. But that's not surprising. It's just one more example of how everybody's a hypocrite, and why society is politically doomed. Politics is all about "how can I use the government to push my beliefs on everybody else, while doing the least amount of work and expecting the least amount of rules to apply to me". Hypocrisy is more obvious with republicans than democrats because contradictory philosophies are at the core of their foundation. It's one of the major Achilles' heels of the republican party and why aside from having the face of Bush, Palin, racism, and flat-eartherness, they will likely lose the next presidential race. It's unfortunate we don't have a decent party to turn to.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

It's unfortunate we don't have a decent party to turn to.

This could easily be solved, IMO with instanst-runoff elections. The current state of things disincentives voting third party because it splits the like-minded vote.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This could easily be solved, IMO with instanst-runoff elections. The current state of things disincentives voting third party because it splits the like-minded vote.

Getting either party to give up any power is a fool's errand. Neither party would ever go for such a thing, and since both these parties are in power, it'll never happen.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Getting either party to give up any power is a fool's errand. Neither party would ever go for such a thing, and since both these parties are in power, it'll never happen.

Many states can have amendments passed by referendum, my friend. And in more than a few of those, the people have ****ed over the will of the politicians. Just gotta mobilize.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Many states can have amendments passed by referendum, my friend. And in more than a few of those, the people have ****ed over the will of the politicians. Just gotta mobilize.

We're talking about the US constitution, not a particular state's. That's the one we'd have to change (depending on how the courts rule) - assuming they uphold the state's reasoning.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

We're talking about the US constitution, not a particular state's. That's the one we'd have to change (depending on how the courts rule) - assuming they uphold the state's reasoning.

But would it apply to elections at a local level?

Edit: In can be done

I'd do it anyway and see what happens in court.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

But would it apply to elections at a local level?

Edit: In can be done

I'd do it anyway and see what happens in court.

No, the US constitution preempts all state constitutions, laws etc.

You could edit the state's constitution, but it would get thrown out by a federal judge (provided this current lawsuit sides with the state's claim that gerrymandering is protected by the US constitution). State constitutions do not preempt the US constitution. The clause cited by the state is part of the US Constitution, which cannot be amended or preempted by any particular state's constitution. A local referendum, even a successful amendment to a particular state's constitution would have absolutely 0 bearing on the issue being decided in this lawsuit, as it is a matter of US Constitutional law.

[The Final Dakar]

Cities bristle as state asserts authority over fracking

In a city that overwhelmingly voted to ban fracking, a legislative move in Austin to thwart the ordinance isn't going over well.

House Bill 40 would prohibit municipalities from outlawing oil and gas drilling within city limits.

"It was neighbors and friends knocking on doors," she said. "It's heart wrenching [now] because you feel like our voice doesn't matter."

It's a feeling echoed a short distance to the west in the small town of Reno, Texas.

"With HB 40, what the state is telling us is: We don't have a right to say we don't want earthquakes," said Mayor Lynda Stokes.

[The Final Dakar]

Local governance is the best governance unless it disagrees with our politics: Help Workers, Risk Losing Money for Cops - Bloomberg Business

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/us...nder.html?_r=0

North Carolina legislators, in a whirlwind special session on Wednesday, passed a wide-ranging bill barring transgender people from bathrooms and locker rooms that do not match the gender on their birth certificates.

Republicans unanimously supported the bill, while in the Senate, Democrats walked out in protest. “This is a direct affront to equality, civil rights and local autonomy,” the Senate Democratic leader, Dan Blue, said in a statement.

North Carolina’s governor, Pat McCrory, a Republican, signed the bill late Wednesday night.

The session, which was abruptly convened by Republican lawmakers on Tuesday, came in response to an antidiscrimination ordinance approved by the state’s largest city, Charlotte, last month. That ordinance provided protections based on sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity, including letting transgender people use the public bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity, not gender at birth.

The state bill, put together so quickly that many lawmakers had not seen it before it was introduced Wednesday morning, specifically bars people in North Carolina from using bathrooms that do not match their birth gender, and goes further to prohibit municipalities from creating their own antidiscrimination policies. Instead, it creates a statewide antidiscrimination policy — one that does not mention gay and transgender people. The bill also prohibits local governments from raising minimum wage levels above the state level — something a number of cities in other states have done.

This is garbage of the highest order.