California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact • Hacker News Board

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#61

Post by codys » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #42

new_time wrote: post #20

I love the United States' flexible decentralized model. Different states have sufficient autonomy to tinker and try different approaches, allowing the best ideas to emerge from the collective. It's one reason why the US is such a dynamic place, similar to Europe but with the additional benefit of unified language, culture (broadly), economy, and high level regulations. It's truly a great system.

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…

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. It's plausible that they expect to ask for approval, or rely on it being unlikely that congress explicitly disapproves, or perhaps they expect to obtain approval in the future.

[note: I've linked to a point in the opinion discussing Congressional approval]

1: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=103881997639573...

2: https://www.gsgp.org/media/1313/understanding_interstate_com...

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#62

Post by lisper » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

mjcl wrote: post #31

DoreenMichele wrote: post #15

As someone who lives in one of these states, I'm nonplussed at the announcement. It doesn't really seem to say anything concrete that I can tell. "We've agreed that we will use metrics...we are still deciding what these metrics will be." I thought the Stay Home, Stay Healthy order (in Washington state) wasn't unreasonable and wasn't just political babble, but I don't really know what to make of this piece. Anyone wan…

I think this is a polite way of these states saying that they're not going to follow any 'national plan to reopen the economy' put out by the White House.

Exactly right. One of the rules of the game is that you're not allowed to say anything negative about Donald Trump even if (perhaps especially if) it is factually correct. If you do, he will retaliate (by, for example, withholding badly needed aid). So the governors have to speak in code.

Listen to Newsome's news conference today and the answer he gave to a reporter about his reaction to Trump's announcement that the decision to re-open the economy is his (Trump's) alone. It's a masterpiece.

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#63

Post by pascalxus » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

new_time wrote: post #20

I love the United States' flexible decentralized model. Different states have sufficient autonomy to tinker and try different approaches, allowing the best ideas to emerge from the collective. It's one reason why the US is such a dynamic place, similar to Europe but with the additional benefit of unified language, culture (broadly), economy, and high level regulations. It's truly a great system.

In this case it works well. In other areas...

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#64

Post by Invictus0 » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

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.

Can you provide any source for criticism from the left on this decision? I only found this:

> Although Democratic leaders and Democratic presidential candidates have been highly critical of Trump’s response to the coronavirus, we couldn’t find any examples of them directly and clearly criticizing the travel restrictions.

[0]: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel...

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#65

Post by zw123456 » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

klodolph wrote: post #12

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #4

Floreat Cascadia!

Not to be pedantic or anything but Cascadia definitely doesn’t include California. Nuh-uh, no way José, no siree.

Ya but I feel that California, Oregon and Washington are bound but many unique and common cultural ideals. Tech, ecology, etc. I live in Seattle and there is a lot of fun rivalry but if I didn't live here it would be Bay area, Portland, San Diego, LA, etc. The West Coast has a special culture in my view.

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#66

Post by JoshTriplett » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #42

new_time wrote: post #20

I love the United States' flexible decentralized model. Different states have sufficient autonomy to tinker and try different approaches, allowing the best ideas to emerge from the collective. It's one reason why the US is such a dynamic place, similar to Europe but with the additional benefit of unified language, culture (broadly), economy, and high level regulations. It's truly a great system.

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.

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#67

Post by wahern » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

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…

Yeah, this falls far short of what these states should be saying, something like "We're feverishly working on building out the infrastructure for wide-scale population testing and tracing, but we will not lift shelter-in-place until we're confident the infrastructure is in place in all three states to contain any outbreaks".

I have the same beef with Mayor Breed in San Francisco, who has otherwise shown standout leadership. She's publicly worried that people will let their guard done by assuming things are under control. Rather than worry about people's feelings and opinions, she should be setting expectations exactly as I described above.

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#68

Post by catchingsun » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

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-...

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#69

Post by 0x8BADF00D » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

themodelplumber wrote: post #55

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Delusional take. The petrodollar system is collapsing. USD will not be the reserve currency for much longer.

So you have this information and see only downsides? I'm curious if this is a perception-only exercise for you, or if you are taking steps to execute on that perception in a way that helps you and others prepare and pivot as needed. Or do you really see literally endless downside, and have thus decided to lock yourself out of actions you can take now to prepare for future upsides? If so that would suck, because this…

If my hypothesis is correct, I have unlimited upside. It's hard being bearish in any market, but now's the best time to be one. Across many asset classes. Probably not stocks, because the Fed will continue to inflate those assets. But in real terms they will drop. GC >= 1800 EOM, CL = 16.5 within 2 weeks are my predictions.

Re: California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact

#70

Post by lordgilman » Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #42

new_time wrote: post #20

I love the United States' flexible decentralized model. Different states have sufficient autonomy to tinker and try different approaches, allowing the best ideas to emerge from the collective. It's one reason why the US is such a dynamic place, similar to Europe but with the additional benefit of unified language, culture (broadly), economy, and high level regulations. It's truly a great system.

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…

I would imagine this is like the AASHTO or the UCC lobbying groups where the agreements don't force any states to do anything, the states just independently do the same thing together. And in some cases like with the UCC they don't even do that.