This is exactly what I said to someone recently. "State autonomy and even state sovereignty is foundational to an understanding of the Constitutional order of things."
Look at the immigration issue. It's a State issue but we have the DOJ suing TX to allow it to happen (basically).
The reason the States don't hold more power is they are sucking the tit of the Feds. I don't think the States will give up the money unfortunately.
Not sure how you conclude that immigration is a "state" issue when Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution establishes as a power of Congress the establishment of a uniform rule on Naturalization as well as regulating foreign and interstate commerce.
Whether immigration is approached in terms of citizenship (Naturalization), economics (foreign commerce), or human and drug trafficking as well as the presence of transnational gangs (border and domestic security), very few if any legal aspects of immigration carry a state brief.
More brilliant thinking from Peter! Yes, our Founding Fathers structured the framing documents to enable freedom of choice throughout the Republic, at the local level. States’ citizens were supposed to have the right to choose their own priorities and versions of living.
At the local level, this is what ‘zoning’ is all about. Do some residents want to live in a quiet suburb with large lots and family-oriented amenities like playgrounds? No problem, residents can zone the area for that lifestyle. Other people want to live in a culturally-vibrant neighborhood, with bars, live music, late hours, and rampant partying. Some parts of a metro area can be zoned for that, and thus everyone can choose what they prefer! As their lifestyles evolve - as rowdy college kids marry, have children, and settle down - they can change the neighborhood they live in without having to move out of their city. Everyone gets what they want, without taking anything away from others, just by zoning - choosing at the local level! That was the mindset of the Founders in prioritizing States’ rights.
I hope Democrats examine our Constitution in their search for solutions. What delicious irony it will be if they slowly realize how amazing that document is, and how wrongly their policies have served America thus far. This would be healing for our nation!
Happy Veterans Day, Peter. Once again, thank you for your service!
In the county I live in Florida and I don't know if it's throughout our state or other states are involved, but they even tried the trick of redistricting! It didn't work.
also, many people may not realize that the Republican party got ahead of the game this time since I know the shenanigans that were pulled last time and they went to the states like Pennsylvania and other states and they actually sued certain counties and maybe even the whole state over things like voter ID and other things that would be too much detail for me to get into here.
As long as we have an election where every vote counts, and I don't know if there's ever been an election in the history of our country that every vote has counted.
And as far as the electoral college, I'm just not sold on that. I think that every person's vote should be counted!
Kamala Harris only won in a few counties--primarily Cook County, which is where Chicago is situated. The rest of the state went to Donald Trump. If Illinois counted votes county by county and gave the states EC votes to the candidate who won the most counties, Donald Trump would have won Illinois (and a state legislature would be well within its Constitutional prerogatives to select its slate of Presidential electors on just such a basis if it wanted).
Chicago--and most urban areas--tend to lean Democratic. If the President were elected on the basis of a raw popular referendum vote, the Democrats would only need to campaign in Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Boston, and a few other large metropolitan areas to secure a nationwide majority vote. Republicans would therefore have to campaign heavily in those same cities and compete primarily for that urban vote.
We know that would be the outcome because we can see the disparity in urban vs rural voting patterns in states such as Illinois and even California (inland from the coast the state gets a lot more red).
If neither political party was required to campaign in rural areas, would rural votes truly "count"?
This is why the Electoral College endures. The President of the United States is the ONLY elective office that is chosen on a nationwide basis. Every other elected official is elected by the voters of a particular district or a particular state. The Electoral College is the mechanism which obligates every Presidential candidate to campaign on a nationwide basis and to build a nationwide coalition of voters. It makes rural votes as relevant to the outcome as urban votes--and that to me is what makes votes truly "count", when they are relevant to the outcome.
The irony of the noisome Newson and other Dem governors enabling Trump’s swamp drainage plan by asserting states’ rights is epic.
State's Rights
.
I Was Just Given A Tesla
By A Liberal.
So,
To Anyone Out There
I Have Room For Two More.
Maybe Three.
.
For me and my friends, we backed the actual anti-fascist, the literal anti-Hitler.
https://youtu.be/xJfUXVOoFBo?si=t4ZdBMxresrBVTAa
Pretty much.
This is exactly what I said to someone recently. "State autonomy and even state sovereignty is foundational to an understanding of the Constitutional order of things."
Look at the immigration issue. It's a State issue but we have the DOJ suing TX to allow it to happen (basically).
The reason the States don't hold more power is they are sucking the tit of the Feds. I don't think the States will give up the money unfortunately.
Not sure how you conclude that immigration is a "state" issue when Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution establishes as a power of Congress the establishment of a uniform rule on Naturalization as well as regulating foreign and interstate commerce.
Whether immigration is approached in terms of citizenship (Naturalization), economics (foreign commerce), or human and drug trafficking as well as the presence of transnational gangs (border and domestic security), very few if any legal aspects of immigration carry a state brief.
And another
https://www.ilrc.org/state-map-immigration-enforcement-2024
The opening: "Although immigration law is federal law, administered by federal agencies...."
Found this article. Will have to read up more.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/dont-confuse-immigration-naturalization
Immigration and naturalization are two different concepts.
However, Congress has the explicit delegated power to regulate both.
More brilliant thinking from Peter! Yes, our Founding Fathers structured the framing documents to enable freedom of choice throughout the Republic, at the local level. States’ citizens were supposed to have the right to choose their own priorities and versions of living.
At the local level, this is what ‘zoning’ is all about. Do some residents want to live in a quiet suburb with large lots and family-oriented amenities like playgrounds? No problem, residents can zone the area for that lifestyle. Other people want to live in a culturally-vibrant neighborhood, with bars, live music, late hours, and rampant partying. Some parts of a metro area can be zoned for that, and thus everyone can choose what they prefer! As their lifestyles evolve - as rowdy college kids marry, have children, and settle down - they can change the neighborhood they live in without having to move out of their city. Everyone gets what they want, without taking anything away from others, just by zoning - choosing at the local level! That was the mindset of the Founders in prioritizing States’ rights.
I hope Democrats examine our Constitution in their search for solutions. What delicious irony it will be if they slowly realize how amazing that document is, and how wrongly their policies have served America thus far. This would be healing for our nation!
Happy Veterans Day, Peter. Once again, thank you for your service!
In the county I live in Florida and I don't know if it's throughout our state or other states are involved, but they even tried the trick of redistricting! It didn't work.
also, many people may not realize that the Republican party got ahead of the game this time since I know the shenanigans that were pulled last time and they went to the states like Pennsylvania and other states and they actually sued certain counties and maybe even the whole state over things like voter ID and other things that would be too much detail for me to get into here.
As long as we have an election where every vote counts, and I don't know if there's ever been an election in the history of our country that every vote has counted.
And as far as the electoral college, I'm just not sold on that. I think that every person's vote should be counted!
Consider for a moment the vote returns from Illinois, which went for Kamala Harris this time around 53.7%-44.7%.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/illinois-president-results
Kamala Harris only won in a few counties--primarily Cook County, which is where Chicago is situated. The rest of the state went to Donald Trump. If Illinois counted votes county by county and gave the states EC votes to the candidate who won the most counties, Donald Trump would have won Illinois (and a state legislature would be well within its Constitutional prerogatives to select its slate of Presidential electors on just such a basis if it wanted).
Chicago--and most urban areas--tend to lean Democratic. If the President were elected on the basis of a raw popular referendum vote, the Democrats would only need to campaign in Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Boston, and a few other large metropolitan areas to secure a nationwide majority vote. Republicans would therefore have to campaign heavily in those same cities and compete primarily for that urban vote.
We know that would be the outcome because we can see the disparity in urban vs rural voting patterns in states such as Illinois and even California (inland from the coast the state gets a lot more red).
If neither political party was required to campaign in rural areas, would rural votes truly "count"?
This is why the Electoral College endures. The President of the United States is the ONLY elective office that is chosen on a nationwide basis. Every other elected official is elected by the voters of a particular district or a particular state. The Electoral College is the mechanism which obligates every Presidential candidate to campaign on a nationwide basis and to build a nationwide coalition of voters. It makes rural votes as relevant to the outcome as urban votes--and that to me is what makes votes truly "count", when they are relevant to the outcome.