The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

It's a fairly commonly-held belief that certain high up individuals want the protests to escalate so that they can point to them as examples of the lawlessness they've been warning about and/or declare martial law. That's just one reason protesters have been trying their utmost to not let things escalate. People are trying to do things "the right way" through legislation as well but that's extremely slow.

The FAA very clearly has jurisdiction to “all navigable airspace” which is broadly defined as “all airspace immediately above ground level”.

Which is to say, there’s no minimum height threshold under which you could fly a drone (outdoors) where the FAA doesn’t have full legal jurisdiction.

You can say you feel it’s overreach, but it’s well established that the courts do not agree.

Having said all of that, I definitely agree that the states have been doing a pretty shit job of asserting their rights across the board.

Of course it isn’t just individual states. Congress as a whole has been happily ceding power to the executive branch for a few decades now - which is largely how we’ve gotten to this point.

I'm pretty sure most news outlets would cave with the right pressure, with or without any new laws. On top of that is the fact that the department for foreign affairs is the department where the line between ministry and department is the thinest* - I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, in such a scenario they'd be asked, especially by the US, to put a stop to something, they'd actually put (unofficial, undocumented) pressure on the entity or person in question.

* As opposed to most democracies ministerial rule is highly frowned upon in Sweden, and as a minister you can't issue official decrees that govern how the department itself interpret laws or conduct its business. Instead you (e.g. the parliament) change laws and society act accordingly.

The most direct fault leading to that is the massive expansion of the Commerce Clause and the following elevation of every major issue to the federal level. The founders never expected this because the federal government wasn’t even supposed to be able to dictate most intra-state things.

The idea of the Senate makes sense, at least to me. States give up some sovereignty to be in the union, the Senate gives each state equal representation because they’ve each given up the same level of self-governance. The House reflects people equally as members of the union, and the Senate reflects states equally as members of the union.

Without the Senate, small states are giving up way more sovereignty than larger ones. Eg Rhode Island would have practically no sovereignty, they’d just be captives of Texas, California, etc. They don’t have enough people to swing a vote, so no federal party is going to campaign there or listen to what they want.

Making more states dilutes power in the Senate, and I don’t see a clean way to do that. If we allow arbitrary divisions of states, we invoke a race to the bottom where states can just fragment into a million tiny states and chaos ensues. If we enforce a lower population limit then the Senate just reflects the populace and becomes a pointless copy of the House.