73

It looks to me as if the Harvard Law Review is engaging in a rather laboured joke, in the spirit of Swift's A Modest Proposal. To be more precise, it seems to be a satire on the temptation to change the rules when one is losing the game. The problem with that in any vaguely democratic system is assembling the votes to make the change. This proposal ...


36

It is essentially not allowed. States may not usurp the federal power over immigration. State attempts to regulate concurrently in a field already occupied by a federal statute have been struck down under the doctrine of preemption. In Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), for example, the Court held that the Federal Alien Registration Act preempted Pennsylvania ...


30

In addition to the issue David S identifies: Cost. Texas has a state budget that runs about $108B/year. Cost estimates for a border wall vary a lot, but the most recent request to Congress from the Office of Management and Budget works out to ~$24.4 million per mile. Even if the state decides it only needs a few hundred miles of wall construction (perhaps ...


23

Article IV of the US Constitution says: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, [...] So no, the Constitution explicitly forbids Congress from admitting a monarchy. States have immense latitude in the form of their republic, and the ultimate question of whether or not it is a republic is up to ...


22

Could they do it? Probably. Several things could go wrong, though. I think changing our system in such a fundamental way with such a contrived method would shake faith in our democracy. It would be seen as illegitimate, even if it was done "by the book", everyone voted the expected way, and the courts declared it legal. While the proposal correctly states ...


21

Here's a non-exhaustive list: Trump could've warned the American people about the dangers of the virus earlier, instead of downplaying the threat and constantly telling citizens it will "go away". Although to be fair, few countries took the danger seriously up until late February. His administration initially told people not to wear masks and only ...


18

Precedent suggests that this would require Pennsylvania and New Jersey to consent, with the approval of Congress; Philadelphia would have absolutely no legal say in the matter, although it would be exceedingly unlikely that they would be kicked out without their consent. City Philadelphia's powers are those granted by its charter, which are those of local ...


18

Can state governments be overthrown without national government involvement? Yes. It happens sometimes when there's an election. Could state militaries over throw their own state government and establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the national government? Most likely no. Each state also has a constitution, and prescribes how ...


18

The Ninth and Tenth amendments are something of an inseparable pair. The Ninth in particular has been almost entirely subsumed into the Tenth, and almost never gets mentioned in any binding opinion/decision. The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment by Kurt Lash is a fairly recent treatment of the Ninth amendment's jurisprudence (insofar as mostly ...


14

No, but there's really no need for them to do so either. Remember, The Paris Accords were largely a do-it-yourself framework Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (...


14

As said in the US constitution: Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution states: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the ...


13

Practically, two main advantages to state level policies: Not all states have the same basic conditions. In California, with a sizeable Hispanic minority, it may make sense printing government forms both in English and Spanish. In Alaska, maybe not so much. A Federal law would either ignore one of the realities, or add at least a complexity level (if worded ...


12

Yes and no. It really depends on which view of the Enumerated Powers you subscribe to, as there have been differences of opinion on them since their inception. James Madison subscribed to a very narrow view of what the "General Welfare" meant, while Alexander Hamilton's views were more generous. The first Enumerated Powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of ...


11

State has the same meaning today as it did during the 18th century. STATE (Dictionary of the English language by Samuel Johnson (1768, 3rd edition) & 1792 edition) [...] 5. The community; the public; the commonwealth. 6. A republick; a government not monarchical. [...] 13. The principal perſon in the government. STATE (Merriam-Webster Online) 5a. : a ...


11

There are different subjects of federation in Russia: republics, krais, oblasts, one autonomous oblast and two or three federal cities. Each of them has their own laws and elected legislatures. But, as you correctly mentioned, the head of each subject is now appointed rather than elected. Nevertheless, this system definitely falls into federalism because, as ...


11

If someone is prosecuted for a federal crime, a state cannot interfere with the president's power to pardon the convict for the federal crime. The same act that led to the person's conviction under federal law could also be a crime under state law. If the person were separately convicted of the state crime in a state court, the convict could not be ...


11

Yes, such an index indeed exists: The Regional Authority Index (RAI) tracks regional authority on an annual basis from 1950 to 2010 in 81 countries. The sample consists of all EU member states, all OECD member states, all Latin American countries, ten countries in Europe beyond the EU and eleven in the Pacific and South-East Asia. I've selected the ...


11

No You are confusing whether or not state and local governments are required to enforce federal laws, with whether or not following those laws is optional. Regardless of what state and local law enforcement decides to do, people are still expected to follow federal laws and can still get in serious trouble for not following them. Sanctuary cities appear ...


11

Federal-level elections in the US are a state matter. Every state does their own election according to their own laws. But there is precedent for the federal government to regulate the states in this regards, like with the voting rights act of 1965. One possible constitutional challenge to such a law could be that prohibiting people from talking about the ...


11

The UK has been a unitary state for much of its history, and its Parliament has had two Houses for most of that time. The role of the House of Lords is as the quote in the question states. It's not subject to to either the political or electoral pressures of the Commons (given that it's entirely unelected), so it is able to deliberate on matters at length - ...


10

As best as I can tell, political parties are entities unto themselves under the Federal Election Campaign Act. They may also be corporations (the DNC is a not-for-profit corporation in DC, according to the Sanders campaign's lawsuit), but the primary body of law concerning them is the FECA, as administered by the Federal Election Committee (FEC). According ...


9

Yes, Professor Brunnermeier is correct. Let's start with a simple unitary state. The national government makes all laws. It needs however many laws it needs. Now, supposing all other things are equal except instead of a simple unitary government you have a federal system with both a national government and states (sub-national) units. Their laws will ...


9

The election for the president is the Electoral college. You are talking about how a state chooses its electors, and this is a matter for the state. The people in Maryland get to choose between the various candidates who have qualified to be on the ballot. The winner of the election in Maryland gets to choose who he or she wants to represent Maryland in the ...


9

The tenth amendment has been called a "truism" by the SCOTUS, As such it formally never mattered. It was always implicit. The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. (from US v Darby Lumber Co.) The amendment is sometimes referenced in judgments when the Federal government requires states to enforce ...


8

The two states of affair are a result of history, so I'm not sure your question can be answered as is. On the French side, the historical process has been to centralize ever more power in Paris. Initially it was about growing the royal domain and keeping French vassals in check. Power concentration in Paris continued for all practical intents and purposes ...


8

With a couple of exceptions where bicameral parliaments grew out of tradition (i.e. probably only England), at some point in history a select group of people from a state came together and began drawing up a constitution. This can be initiated from above (the German constitution of 1871) or from members of the public (the West German constitution of 1948). ...


7

Article 49 of the treaties of the European Union says Any European State [...] may apply. So the question is "what is a state"? There are many different definitions of statedom, but in practice a region is a state when other states consider it one. So in order to join the EU, the other EU states would have to recognize the entity as a sovereign state. ...


7

"Euro-skepticism" and "states rights" are not equivalent, and therefore we would not expect there to be a similar effect. The closest equivalent in European terms to "states rights" would be "devolution" in the British context. The United States is, at least since the beginning of the 20th-century, an uncontested country, state and nation. As such, ...


7

when debate was stalled on a national level. When was that? I'm going to assume that you mean Hillary Clinton's failed initiative in 1993. Note that this was followed by a big turn away from Democrats at both the national and state levels. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/11/49-charts-that-tell-the-partisan-history-of-...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible