Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

gov.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 319 posts

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#121

Post by tathougies »

winter_blue wrote: post #75
codys wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm curious about the way they're intending to handling this legally as well. A bit of searching shows a Supreme Court case Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893) [1]. This restricts the application of that clause somewhat, but it isn't 100% clear to me that this Pact is a perfect match for the facts in that case. It also sounds like [2] things are rather flexible in what approval is and when it is obtained.…

Yep, that Supreme Court decision severely limits the need to get congressional consent to form interstate compacts. It would be wonderful if all the progressive/blue/Democratic states in the country could get together, and form an interstate compact for their mutual benefit and advancement. However it's possible that a Republican-majority Supreme Court, seeing the benefit that's coming out a Democratic interstate com…

Highly unlikely. Republicans are for state's rights, and the current president and administration seems especially in favor of it. He basically told the states to get their acts together and put the feds into a mainly supportive role, which is as it should be.

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#122

Post by wahern »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #66
wahern wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not necessarily as flexible as to encompass such sub-federal cooperation: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_O…

That would prevent any such pact from being legally binding on the states. It doesn't necessarily prevent states from coordinating at all.

AFAIU whether the agreement is expressly legally binding is not dispositive. See, e.g., https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec.... Thus even if it's likely to pass muster (and I'm sure it was drafted with that in mind) there still could be colorable arguments that permit a legitimate challenge, especially if politically expedient. But I'm not that familiar with this area of law so I welcome corrections accompanied with citations.

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#123

Post by fleekonpoint »

spankalee wrote: post #40
yingw787 wrote: post #23

Well, that was quick. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22828354 Today it is pandemic resolution. I fear that tomorrow, it might be economic ties, lockstep voting at the federal level, and National Guard drills, deployments, and contingency planning, where the West Coast slowly splits away from the rest of the country, with other states teaming up and following suit. This isn't the end, and it's the only appropria…

> I fear that tomorrow Why fear? This is my dream! The Senate is irreparably broken. There is no conceivable way that it can become more fairly representative of the people without a breakup of the United States. The smaller less populous states aren't going to just give up their outsized power voluntarily. California is suffering the most due to the Senate's structural unfairness, and it has the most to gain from su…

The last time that happened, it started a civil war.

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#124

Post by nostromo »

anoncareer0212 wrote: post #110
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If only we had some sort of united group of all the States, where the response could be coordinated and centralized for maximum effectiveness. We do! It's called the United States government. I'll be letting the president know you're interested in him taking over and using his own ideas, instead of this one you seem to be particularly fond of. Or, if that idea is slightly terrifying for you, perhaps it's a better i…

You have no idea how crazy you sound as a European lol, the most straightforward way to put it is you're using an anonymous account on a website to dunk on someone in the comments section for implying they may care about avoiding infection during a pandemic

> You have no idea how crazy you sound as a European

Europe, a group of many independent states, trying different approaches to a common problem, with an over-arching bureaucracy to coordinate between them... and the US approach sounds crazy to you?

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#125

Post by onychomys »

yingw787 wrote: post #76
spankalee wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I fear that tomorrow Why fear? This is my dream! The Senate is irreparably broken. There is no conceivable way that it can become more fairly representative of the people without a breakup of the United States. The smaller less populous states aren't going to just give up their outsized power voluntarily. California is suffering the most due to the Senate's structural unfairness, and it has the most to gain from su…

Dude...if we're talking about secession, we're talking about civil war. In a country with the second most nuclear weapons in the world. With a federal government already looking to adversaries for cooperation. You're talking nuclear missiles or chemical weapons fired against San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Seattle from land-based silos in the Dakotas, or mutinies aboard our SSBNs, or Russian troops landing en masse in…

Why would the US government nuke cities they're trying to take back?

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#126

Post by Fjolsvith »

catchingsun wrote: post #68
mullingitover wrote: post #14

This is great, and it's a big chunk of population, but I keep feeling like we could do better. For example, these three States could do a great job, but there's nothing stopping a bunch of the other States from bungling it (like, say, ignoring health experts and exempting certain groups from mass gathering restrictions). Then those States end up exporting infectious individuals into the States which are doing things…

If other states don't do a good enough job at controlling their outbreaks, it is maybe, potentially legal to close our borders to residents from those states in order to control spread. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Coronavirus-FAQ-...

"California's got another Flu blockade up this week."

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#127

Post by jMyles »

yingw787 wrote: post #76
spankalee wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I fear that tomorrow Why fear? This is my dream! The Senate is irreparably broken. There is no conceivable way that it can become more fairly representative of the people without a breakup of the United States. The smaller less populous states aren't going to just give up their outsized power voluntarily. California is suffering the most due to the Senate's structural unfairness, and it has the most to gain from su…

Dude...if we're talking about secession, we're talking about civil war. In a country with the second most nuclear weapons in the world. With a federal government already looking to adversaries for cooperation. You're talking nuclear missiles or chemical weapons fired against San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Seattle from land-based silos in the Dakotas, or mutinies aboard our SSBNs, or Russian troops landing en masse in…

> Dude...if we're talking about secession, we're talking about civil war.

You begin your comment with this thesis, but without explanation.

I think secession, in my lifetime, is likely. I think civil war is vanishingly unlikely.

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#128

Post by standardUser »

catchingsun wrote: post #68
mullingitover wrote: post #14

This is great, and it's a big chunk of population, but I keep feeling like we could do better. For example, these three States could do a great job, but there's nothing stopping a bunch of the other States from bungling it (like, say, ignoring health experts and exempting certain groups from mass gathering restrictions). Then those States end up exporting infectious individuals into the States which are doing things…

If other states don't do a good enough job at controlling their outbreaks, it is maybe, potentially legal to close our borders to residents from those states in order to control spread. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Coronavirus-FAQ-...

With sufficient testing capabilities, closing the borders might not be necessary. Instead, test at the borders (and airports) and impose a mandatory quarantine on any infected individuals.

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#129

Post by wolco »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #44
kylemh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're correct, but the announcement is still welcome. People are gonna be waiting forever for any semblance of federal guidance, so at least these 3 states has decided they'll make calls together.

In this case, I would be vastly more comfortable if the answer were "No, Doreen, you really are as dumb as you think. Their plan is 1... 2.... 3...." The US governmental system has a long history of injecting bureaucratic nonsense that takes on a life of its own and ends up with outcomes like "teaching to the test" instead of being a net benefit. I would feel differently if this were an announcement of a joint task f…

It means these states will together decide when to reopen. A task force would provide that bureaucratic waste. What is the advantage of Oregon having more data to decide to reopen a week before California. The value of them standing together gives poltical shielding against a national government. They speak for the entire west coast. I wonder if other regions will do the same. Mountain states, Northern states, the South as a group wouldn't do this which would group them by subtraction.

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#130

Post by seanmcdirmid »

RandomTisk wrote: post #38
danhak wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, he wanted to dodge responsibility for the unpleasant job of shutting things down. Now he wants to enjoy positive publicity for opening things back up.

He wanted to shut down travel from China in January, something he got reamed for politically by the media and the left. Damned if you do and all that.

They actually didn't though. The only thing I can find negative on Trump's travel ban is an independent opinion piece on NyT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/opinion/china-travel-coro... (2/5/20)

And even then, the criticism was of the form:

> Valid arguments may exist for shutting down the world to travelers originating in China — and shutting down China to the world — as a reasonable public health response. But the World Health Organization explicitly did not advise that any restriction of trade or travel was necessary when it declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern last week, and it still doesn’t. Instead, it has called for exit screening in international airports and domestic hubs in China.

What Trump did get a lot of flack on was travel banning countries like Nigeria at the same time, completely unrelated to the coronavirus:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/opinion/trump-travel-ban-...

Trump and his supporters have made up much of this narrative on their own without any actual action on the left, e.g. see:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/27/donald-tru...

Post reply on HN