US Politics: I am a blatant racist and that will give unfair advantages to minorities or something

[Galactus]

I know, that's why I quibbled with Galactus' assertion.

Honestly, my assertion is simply that US states are not sovereign becuase they don't act like they are.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Sorry, that's just inaccurate. McVeigh always explicitly denied that race had anything to do with his attack, and there is no evidence he was lying. In fact, something that is often swept under the rug in regards to his actions is that they were partly in response to the first Gulf War (which he viewed as unjust), not just Waco. As in, sympathy for the Arabs he was sent to kill.

I don't give a shit what McVeigh denied, and it baffles and, frankly, disgusts me that you for some reason feel compelled to defend a mass murderer against the charge of racism.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/17/court.archive.mcveigh2/

Back in Kansas, he grew more aloof and alienated from his fellow soldiers. In addition, McVeigh developed a reputation as a racist. At one point, he even signed up for a trial membership in the KKK, although he chose not to renew because he found the Klan too focused on issues of race and not enough on Second Amendment rights, he later claimed to Michel and Herbeck.

So he was racist enough to join the KKK, but not racist enough to to think race should be their primary focus. Or in your mind is this something we should give a mass murderer a pat on the back for?

As for the broader militia movement, of course there are some "ties" to white supremacy because there a myriad of groups. But most espouse nothing about race in their official creeds (the Aryan Nation and such is not what I'm talking about when I say "militia"), and you know no more about their inner hearts than I do.

Finally, who cares if National Review is hypocritical and partisan? I have no argument there, but that's not the discussion. The militia movement and anti-government sentiment did not begin with Obama

I care because it speaks to the credibility (in this case enormous lack of credibility) of the source of the article you felt should sway all our liberal hearts to sympathizing with the militia movement. The 'anti-state' militia movement rose, as I've said, after the most open forms of institutional and state racism were ended (and it had a resurgence when Obama entered the White House). It's hysterical white fear of disempowerment. They're historically tied to explicit racism, and it's incredibly, outrageously, insanely naive to imagine that the groups that aren't completely explicit about it don't share the racial ideology of their out-in-the-open cousins.

He's a rather interesting individual, actually, with some redeeming qualities. My own opinion on his actions would be considerably more sympathetic had he just chosen his target better.

This is just absolutely beyond the pale. Does your backwards ideology really have you so twisted up that you're approving of bombings- if only the target was 'better chosen'- and are sympathizing and finding redeeming qualities in McVeigh because he hated the federal government just like you?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

Of course they don't when they try to assert retained powers, like that to leave, bad things tend to happen to those States so asserting that power.

[Galactus]

Galactus,

Of course they don't when they try to assert retained powers, like that to leave, bad things tend to happen to those States so asserting that power.

Which just proves the point, really.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

That depends on whether or not you believe the Federal Government was granted or assumed the power to force a State to remain in the Union. Is there a provison for a State to leave the EU? If a State tried to leave and the EU raised armies to invade that State how would the EU actions be viewed?

A quick google search suggests a State can leave the EU with the permission of the EU parliment:

Can a country withdraw from the EU or be thrown out?

Yes a country can indeed leave the EU.

Article 50 in the Lisbon Treaty proscribes the procedure if a member state wishes to withdraw from the European Union. First of all the member state must inform the Council of its intentions, whereby the Union will negotiate on a withdrawal agreement with the member state. Afterwards the Council will obtain consent from the European Parliament and will itself vote on the agreement, acting by a qualified majority.

A country cannot be expelled from the EU. On the other hand, it is possible for certain of a countrys rights in the EU, including voting rights in the Council, to be suspended. This can happen if a Member State has seriously and consistently violated the principles on which the EU is based: freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the principle of the rule of law, which means that the EUs rules are applied and their observance is ensured.

However, needing the permission of the EU Parliment to leave the EU raises an interesting question.

Galactus, wouldn't that mean EU member States are not sovereign as you have defined sovereignty? The States need the permission of the EU to withdraw from the EU.

[grumdin]

That's the crux of it. "The feds" are delegate by an instrument on the federal level (IE: the Constitution) that in turn binds both them and the states. The *scope* of this is self-limited: IE: The Constitution limits the Constitution. If the Constitution changes, eg. expands as in the case of the 14th amendment, then the states powers change. But the reverse is not true.

Now, the states *collectively* does have the power to alter the constitution, but individual states do not: Thus they are bound by an entity higher than themselves (the US constitution).

State powers are limited by the Constitution. A sovereign state's power is not (legally at least) limited by anything except itself.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg discussion. The truth is that this was settled in 1865. The United States was formed as a voluntary confederation of sovereign states with a few powers delegated to a central authority, after 1865 it became a centralized imperial Republic with a few powers delegated to the states. This is the reality, debating words on paper is pointless. But to label anyone as 'unpatriotic' for not showing proper love and deference to the Imperial centre is silly. The Federal government is not America.

OK, I'm with you. Sovereignty can be transferred to the EU, but the member states reserve the right to withdraw, so remain sovereign. Still makes your statement overly black and white, IMO.

Sovereign governments maintain a monopoly on legalized violence. Does the EU have this? No? Then they're not sovereign.

I would not wholey disagree. Many of those involved in writing and ratifying the constitution did not like the concept of a standing army of any size. While not practical in todays world, out modern military does not sit well with the constitution.

The constitutional limit on maintaining a standing army was an attempt to ensure states sovereignty. As soon as DC got itself a large permanent army the war was lost. Having armed forces in the US has never been about defending the country from potential foreign invasion. The United States is a continent spanning behemoth with enormous resources and a population armed to the teeth, and it always has been. A standing army was formed primarily to centralize power and then to project force overseas.

[Fez]

So here's a particularly depressing, and lengthy, new article on climate change and how badly we, and the world as a whole, are failing at addressing it:

By now, countries have delayed action for so long that the necessary emissions cuts will have to be extremely sharp. In April 2014, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that if we want to stay below the 2°C limit, global greenhouse-gas emissions would have to decline between 1.3 percent and 3.1 percent each year, on average, between 2010 and 2050.

To put that in perspective, global emissions declined by just 1 percent for a single year after the 2008 financial crisis, during a brutal recession when factories and buildings around the world were idling. We'd potentially have to triple that pace of cuts, and sustain it year after year.

-snip-

If 2°C looks increasingly out of reach, then it’s worth looking at what happens if we blow past that and go to, say, 3°C or 4°C.

Four degrees (or 7.2° Fahrenheit) may not sound like much. But the world was only about 4°C to 7°C cooler, on average, during the last ice age, when large parts of Europe and the United States were covered by glaciers. The IPCC concluded that changing the world’s temperature in the opposite direction could bring similarly drastic changes, such as "substantial species extinctions," or irreversibly destabilizing Greenland's massive ice sheet.

In 2013, researchers with the World Bank took a look at the science on projected effects of 4°C warming and were mortified by what they found. A growing number of studies suggest that global food production could take a big hit under 3°C or 4°C of warming. Poorer countries like Bangladesh, Egypt, Vietnam, and parts of Africa could see large tracts of farmland made unusable by rising seas.

-snip-

Perhaps most significantly, the World Bank report wasn’t even sure if humanity could adapt to a 4°C world. At the moment, the large lender is helping poorer countries prepare for global warming by building seawalls, conducting crop research, and improving freshwater management. But, as an internal review found, most of these efforts are being done with relatively small temperature increases in mind. The bank wasn’t planning for 3°C or 4°C of global warming — because no one really knew what that might entail.

"[G]iven that uncertainty remains about the full nature and scale of impacts," the report said, "there is also no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible." And its conclusion was stark: "The projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur."

Happy Earth Day!

[grumdin]

Galactus,

That depends on whether or not you believe the Federal Government was granted or assumed the power to force a State to remain in the Union. Is there a provison for a State to leave the EU? If a State tried to leave and the EU raised armies to invade that State how would the EU actions be viewed?

A quick google search suggests a State can leave the EU with the permission of the EU parliment:

However, needing the permission of the EU Parliment to leave the EU raises an interesting question.

Galactus, wouldn't that mean EU member States are not sovereign as you have defined sovereignty? The States need the permission of the EU to withdraw from the EU.

I suppose there are some legalities in Europe that would require this? Honestly I have no idea. Practically however it's irrelevant. Say the UK wished to leave the EU, they have the most powerful armed forces in western Europe. Who is going to stop them exactly? So yes I'd say England is sovereign, perhaps other countries like Greece less so.

[Galactus]

The Federal government is not America.

No, it is however, the United States.

Galactus, wouldn't that mean EU member States are not sovereign as you have defined sovereignty? The States need the permission of the EU to withdraw from the EU.

Depends on what happens in practice, but if the EU was able to stop a state leaving then yes, that would mean that state is no longer sovereign.

. The United States was formed as a voluntary confederation of sovereign states with a few powers delegated to a central authority

Yes it was. However, that ended with the end of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution is a federal state with several autonomous sub-units, but even from the start states were not sovereign as the federal government could and did overrule them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

So, if understand your position the written legalities are irrelevant only the actual power relationships matter?

[sologdin]

elementary, kids. if we're discussing de jure sovereignty, that's all worked out by definition in the relevant treaties and constitutions and whatnot, in consideration of which anything outside of law is immaterial. if it's de facto sovereignty, by contrast, then those documents will be largely irrelevant. need to avoid the category mistake of mixing the two analyses.

[grumdin]

The Federal government is not America.

No, it is however, the United States.

Depends on what happens in practice, but if the EU was able to stop a state leaving then yes, that would mean that state is no longer sovereign.

Yes it was. However, that ended with the end of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution is a federal state with several autonomous sub-units, but even from the start states were not sovereign as the federal government could and did overrule them.

As the argument goes that's like saying England and Germany are not sovereign because Brussels can overrule them. It's nice to talk about legalisms but that is not how things work in the real world. The states entered into a voluntary confederation and retained sovereignty. They lost sovereignty when the Federal government demonstrated both the will and capacity to apply violence to an overwhelming degree to prevent the states from exercising their sovereignty. That happened in the 1860s.

Also are you really arguing that not showing due loyalty and love to the Federal government displays a lack of love of country? Really?

[Hereward]

It's not simply a case of the EU being able to over-rule member states. The member states have given up all sovereignty to the EU on subjects such as trade.

PS Galactus, I agree with your argument, I just didn't agree with that particular statement as a universal concept.

[Galactus]

Galactus,

So, if understand your position the written legalities are irrelevant only the actual power relationships matter?

The written legalities are only important insofar as they actually constrain the behaviour of the entities in question, yes.

As the argument goes that's like saying England and Germany are not sovereign because Brussels can overrule them.

"England" is definitely not sovereign. (thanks ot the Act of Union)

The states entered into a voluntary confederation and retained sovereignty.

No, they ceased acting as sovereign states long before the Civil War. When the confederacy broke away it had to create new institutions of a sovereign government, becuase the states lacked the institutions of a sovereign nation.

The Constitution *already* limited sovereignty on so many issues in 1792 (foreign policy, most notably) that they weren't acting as sovereign states.

[Fez]

The Supreme Court has upheld Michigan's ban on affirmative action in a 6-2 decision (Kagan recused herself, Breyer joined the majority).

Importantly, the decision doesn't touch on the constitutionality of affirmative action, and instead just stated that the state supreme court didn't have the authority or precedent to overturn this specific law.

ETA: The law itself did not ban affirmative action. Instead it said that a referendum on whether to ban affirmative action would have to go before the voters. The referendum passed during the next election.

[grumdin]

The written legalities are only important insofar as they actually constrain the behaviour of the entities in question, yes.

"England" is definitely not sovereign. (thanks ot the Act of Union)

No, they ceased acting as sovereign states long before the Civil War. When the confederacy broke away it had to create new institutions of a sovereign government, becuase the states lacked the institutions of a sovereign nation.

The Constitution *already* limited sovereignty on so many issues in 1792 (foreign policy, most notably) that they weren't acting as sovereign states.

I don't think you understand. Yes I agree with all you've written regarding treaties etc. Yes the states gave up some of their sovereignty to a central authority however this is not what's important. The states always reserved the right to regain their full sovereignty, just as the United Kingdom (excuse me) does now should it choose to leave the EU. So the question arises where does sovereignty lie? As ever at the end of a barrel. England is sovereign because it can project overwhelming violence against any entity who should attempt to stop it from exercising it's sovereignty. There is no country on the planet who would be stupid enough to attempt to prevent a nuclear power from exercising it's right to independent action (which is what sovereignty is IMO). OTOH the Ukraine is currently unable to do this as were the southern states in the 1860s. In the real world the ability to project violence and the ability to maintain a monopoly on violence within a nation's borders defines the extent of a country's sovereignty IMO.

[lokisnow]

First of all, I have no idea why this reminds you of Leahy. If Leahy actually studied the issue, rather than really on his gut feeling about Republicans, he'd be doing the opposite of what he's doing.

Secondly, facts are facts. People can, and do, misappropriate and misunderstand them, but that doesn't mean the facts themselves are wrong; just that people are. Its the "human element" that gets us into so much trouble, leaders who become convinced of things no matter what the facts are ("of course there are WMDs in Iraq") or who are sure they know what others will do ("of course we can bring Republicans to the bargaining table on taxes").

Furthermore, relying on just the facts gives us some of our most humane policy actions (for instance, the EITC), whereas belief and gut feeling gives us waste that either does nothing or helps the wrong people (for instance, most job training programs).

Cheers, good points. At best I am extremely conflicted on datadriven policy. I'm not a fan of gut feelings policy either. I feel like a lot of data policies are inhuman or amoral and a lot of gut feelings policies are just your typical human nature prejudices, evils and sinfulness dressed up in fancy clothes. But there's also good examples of both out there, so it's a tradeoff. but I don't think we can solve all our woes with data, or that data is inherently more better, how the data is handled by humans matters a lot.

[SeanF]

Galactus,

That depends on whether or not you believe the Federal Government was granted or assumed the power to force a State to remain in the Union. Is there a provison for a State to leave the EU? If a State tried to leave and the EU raised armies to invade that State how would the EU actions be viewed?

A quick google search suggests a State can leave the EU with the permission of the EU parliment:

However, needing the permission of the EU Parliment to leave the EU raises an interesting question.

Galactus, wouldn't that mean EU member States are not sovereign as you have defined sovereignty? The States need the permission of the EU to withdraw from the EU.

I can't argue for other EU member states. However, if the UK Parliament were to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 then the European Court of Justice would cease to have jurisdiction in the UK. In the event that Parliament should pass legislation that conflicted with EU law, then the UK Courts would have to apply the former, overturning the House of Lords ruling in Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport

Strictly speaking, repeal of the ECA would not amount to withdrawal from the EU, but would surely be treated as such by its institutions and other member states.

[Galactus]

Arguably that is an importnat distinction: EU law is implemented in the member-states through their own legislative mechanisms (either directly, by the approporiate legislative assembly, or automatically, by an inclusion statute) it does not have the ability to directly override anything the way the US Constitution does.

[Galactus]

As usual Ta-Nehisi Coates has a take on the Bundy Thing: