It’s really great how so many Leftists are discovering federalism and the 10th Amendment. Of course, this is what Trump wants. He’s said time and time again that he wants the states and municipalities to be the leaders in all this, because they are closer to the actual citizens. They know them better. They know the conditions on the ground better than some functionary in D.C. This is the way it is supposed to work. But, see, it’s always about Resisting Orange Man Bad
States can band together to fight the virus — no matter what Trump wants
With sudden, fearsome ruthlessness, the pandemic has laid bare the essential weaknesses — and, yes, also strengths — of America’s unique federal structure. When Washington proved slow in responding to the new coronavirus, states including California, Ohio and New York moved aggressively, imposing stay-at-home measures, closing parks and ramping up testing spaces to head off an even deadlier disaster. At the same time, our decentralized approach has left us with a patchwork system in which citizens in some states remain vulnerable.
With the president eager to reopen the economy May 1 — and clashing with governors over who has the power to do so — the question of the relative power of states vs. the federal government has rarely been more important. The Constitution is largely on the side of the states. Certainly, Trump doesn’t hold ultimate authority over local public health matters. At the same time, there are aspects of this crisis to which states simply can’t respond individually.
California, Oregon and Washington — and, separately, seven Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states — announced this week that they would collaborate as they consider cautiously restarting their economies; a group of Midwestern states may follow. But these states could go an important step further by establishing “interstate compacts,†a legally binding form of coordination sanctioned by law. They could thereby retain some of the advantages of local autonomy yet also gain some of the benefits of larger coordination. The White House could challenge these compacts — but it’s unlikely to prevail, absent a major change to constitutional law.
It’s also unlikely to challenge the compacts. Why would it? Trump is mostly leaving the authority in the hands of the states, where it rightly belongs.
Finally, experience with renewed waves of infection in Singapore, Hong Kong and China underscores the danger of migration from jurisdictions with lax mitigation policies. Whereas today New Yorkers are blamed in Florida for spreading the pandemic, the boot will probably soon be on the other foot.
While the Constitution protects the right to interstate travel, the protection is not absolute. It’s possible to imagine a compact among states with effective stay-in-place policies that enabled travel among those states, while limiting the entry of residents of states that failed to act in timely fashion against the coronavirus.
I’d bet that if the person in question is an illegal alien the states involved won’t stop them, but welcome them with open arms. I’m also betting that there will be lawsuits a-plenty if states restrict access to legal U.S. citizens, as that would be un-Constitutional. But, then, many might just say “don’t want my business? You’ve lost it forever.”
The past two months only confirm that state reliance on the federal government during the pandemic is a fool’s errand (unless, perhaps, you happen to be a partisan ally of the White House). Absent effective national action, compacts permit coalitions of willing states to protect public health gains and prevent the backsliding that a precipitous economic reopening would allow. So long as Washington dallies, states should keep in mind this constitutionally permitted path to collective action.
Wait, you mean the federal government is slow and ineffective quite often? Huh. Of course, Lefties will immediately push for big centralized government when all this is over.
State and local governments can be dictatorial, too
https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1251633431299096578
Read: Discovering Federalism: Washington Post Thinks States Can Band Together Despite Trump »
The world is reeling from yet another week of the coronavirus pandemic, with death counts rising, economies spiraling downward and half the global population under orders to stay at home.
New Jersey citizens demonstrated in Trenton Friday against the “stay-at-home†order of Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy during the coronavirus crisis.
Flooding events that now occur in America once in a lifetime could become a daily occurrence along the vast majority of the US coastline if sea level rise is not curbed, according to a new study that warns the advancing tides will “radically redefine the coastline of the 21st centuryâ€.
I’ve waited, watched and bit my tongue during the last month of the pandemic-induced work-from-home era but I just can’t take it any more. Please, can we all put away those sweatpants, ratty, gray, decades-old collegiate sweatshirts and obscure minor league baseball caps and start our workdays looking like we deserve the paychecks we’re lucky enough to be earning while the world around us burns? Especially, for the love of all that’s holy, if there’s a group video conference involved?
We tend to notice the connection between coronavirus and oil only when the energy markets collapse. But as history reveals, since the 19th century, pandemics have depended on fossil fuels to go global.
(
The share of Americans who say global climate change is a major threat to the well-being of the United States has grown from 44% in 2009 to 60% this year. But the rise in concern has largely come from Democrats. Opinions among Republicans on this issue remain largely unchanged.
