Recent comments in /f/News

Soapchug wrote

As much as I don’t want to discredit any new research etc., that article seems a bit sensationalized. I’m not familiar w the site but it references the same article as a source lol. I could be totally wrong, guess we’ll see


salo wrote

"Despite the most violent society we have ever seen, less than 1,000 suspects are killed a year. 96% are attacking us with weapons and all but a few others are attacking us with their cars or their fists and more and more with simulated guns so Benjamin Crump can help their family win the lottery."

Here's one of the roots of the problem. These cops believe they are constantly under siege, when violence is at the lowest point it's been in 25 years. And then he lets his racism slip out in the second sentence, insinuating Tamir Rice was offered up by his family as a sacrifice so they could enjoy a lawsuit windfall.

Good riddance, you unthinkably putrid sack of shit.


polpotisevil2 wrote (edited )

State governments are independent of the federal government. The supremacy clause states that federal law usurps state law. So for example marijuana is illegal federally meaning that it is illegal in the entire country, even if State laws are passed saying it is legal (as some have) technically the federal government has absolute authority to arrest anyone in that state smoking marijuana because they are violating federal law. Whether or not the federal government uses that authority is another topic, and currently they are not exercising it in regard to marijuana.

The federal government has the ability to regulate interstate commerce, but it does not necessarily have all power over anything that affects interstate commerce. This is why states are allowed to set more restrictive regulations on businesses operating in their boundaries than the federal government has set.

Theoretically, yes, a court could strike down the stay-at-home orders or specific parts of them(and this has happened in a couple places but cases are ongoing), and theoretically the federal government could amend the constitution to allow the federal government the ability to "reopen" the economy. But currently Trump does not have that authority, just as he cannot rule invalid a local state emergency order during, say, a flood or other natural disaster. It is not the business of the federal government.

Courts are different though and can strike down any order so long as it violates law. For example, I believe courts have struck down parts of the emergency orders in some states that have ordered to close gun stores, citing the second amendment. EDIT: I take that last sentence back. Lawsuits have been filed about it but no court decisions have been found yet as far as I could find.

Hope that makes more sense for you


celebratedrecluse wrote

i thought the US government has sovereignty over the states, especially in times of emergency, due to the supremacy clause of the constitution, which gives the federal government jurisdiction over anything that impacts interstate commerce. so the shelter in place orders, to the extent that they impact interstate commerce (which they do, to the point of potentially causing a depression), these orders could be overturned?

I am sure you are right that this is being directed at federal regulations, but at least theoretically, couldn't the federal court system revoke the state level orders, if a case was brought to the federal court system and it sided against the states?

The USA is a confusing system, forgive me if I don't understand