Regional Subtleties

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
At the same time though, can't the feds override state law anyway, al la californian medial pot laws?

Well, only where a convincing argument can be made that the Federal Government has a compelling interest though one of it's enumerated powers, it can. Otherwise not.

Disputes involving what we call "states rights" will ultimately be resolved in the Supreme Court, who get to make the call as to whose sphere something falls in. "Interstate commerce" is one of the most frequently stretched excuses. "Civil rights" is another.

But in general, the Federal Government can't just arbitrarily interefere with or nullify state law.

Change is both easier and harder to push across several states. It's easier to convince just one state to do something. It's hard to convince all of them, unless they all look at what's happened in states that have already implemented something, and decide that on balance it's good....then they can all implement it, if the other states experience is persuasive. .

This is one reason why we have things like "Uniform Commercial Code" and "Model Fire Code" and "Model Building Codes"....the same language can be independantly adopted by many governmental units (or not, as they think fitting). The UCC is *very* widely adopted though.

But heads up down your way...check out this action:
http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/c...5E8362,00.html

Interesting enough that the intention is a Euro-style "Chineese firewall". But notice the story offered as justification: a school principal is " falsely accused on the Internet of gross acts involving four pupils."

Mr Isaacs, who remains on stress leave, said yesterday he would welcome new Commonwealth defamation laws if they enabled offenders to be dealt with swiftly.

"It's an excellent idea," he said. "It would break through the difficulties of operating across (state) boundaries and protocols which slow the system down. Defamation should definitely be a criminal offence in Queensland and there should be jail penalties. It can destroy someone's life."

Well, I'm sure we'd certainly want to see defamation criminalized to get Mr Issacs back off of "stress leave".

Personally i just think democracy doesn't scale well.

*I* think it's structures like the US constituion that enable it to scale as much and as well as it has in our case.

The rules of Peter Suber's game Nomic are illustrative of some methods for creating a structure that is stable yet revisable. It's very like similar issues in software development; how can you compartmentalize (in both time and space) the impact of change to minimize "unintended consequences".

[Cam]

But in general, the Federal Government can't just arbitrarily interefere with or nullify state law.

The federal Government in the US has been known to interfere with state law. Probably the most well known example is state drinking laws. The Federal government threatened to withhold state highway funding if states refused to instate a drinking age of 21. This might not be arbitrary but it does give the Feds the ability to change things to benefit the country as a whole.

Any state laws that people feel are unconstitutional can be brought to the Supreme Court. This may not be the easiest thing to do but it is a possibility that prevents the states from passing unjust laws, which in return brings about decent uniformity throughout the system. The US court system is a gargantuan mess because of this. However, it works and the majority of US citizens would not want it changed, and due to this being, a Democracy it will not.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Cam
The federal Government in the US has been known to interfere with state law.

Absolutely. But there must be an interest based in one of the enumerated powers to give the Feds standing. In your example, any state that felt strongly enough about the issue could turn down Federal highway money and go their own way.

Why highway money should pass through the Federal government at all is a debatable issue on it's own, of course.

Any state laws that people feel are unconstitutional can be brought to the Supreme Court. This may not be the easiest thing to do but it is a possibility that prevents the states from passing unjust laws, which in return brings about decent uniformity throughout the system.

*Any* law, state or federal, can be challenged for constitutionality. This doesn't actually prevent the passage of unjust laws, only enables the nullification of unconstitutional ones. However, there's often a cause of action under equal protection clause when a law is "unjust".

[warch]

Regional not-so-subtle convenience store/ gas station real names:

Kum and Go.

Pump and Munch.

Any more out there?

[Cam]

Originally posted by MaggieL

*Any* law, state or federal, can be challenged for constitutionality. This doesn't actually prevent the passage of unjust laws, only enables the nullification of unconstitutional ones. However, there's often a cause of action under equal protection clause when a law is "unjust".

True, though if you think about it the being unconstitutional and unjust usually are pretty similiar. And the fact is that the states are going to look harder at their laws they are passing to make sure they would win in the higher court. Maybe not all the time but some of the time. It's never a good sign when all your newly passed laws are being trampled by the Courts.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Cam
True, though if you think about it the being unconstitutional and unjust usually are pretty similiar.

The difference, though, is that "unconstituional" is a much more clear-cut call to make than "unjust". The Constitution is a written document. "Justice" can be much more elusive in definition.

Not thet you don't see people trying to bend the words of the Constitution far out of shape in order to suit their ends, though.

[Nic Name]

Study: Sperm quality differs among U.S. regions

No link this time, jerkoff. Find it yerself. :p

[juju]

Oh no..I have to use Google! I don't know how!! Panic!!

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by juju
Oh no..I have to use Google! I don't know how!! Panic!!

Google? I thought he told you to jerk off. The tricky part will be finding another sample to compare it to. :-)

[elSicomoro]

From what I've heard so far, the study has shown that men that live in urban areas have more potent sperm than their rural counterparts. They say it may have something to do with agricultural products.

Bullshit...it's all about the inbreed factor.

[elSicomoro]

This was brought up in an IOTD thread...soda vs. pop.

In the places I've lived, the word used has been "soda." I've never heard the term "Coke" used (though that is apparently the main word in the South), and the term "pop"...damnit, for some reason that grates my nerves.

[Tobiasly]

Syc, did ya get my PM?

[elSicomoro]

Yeah, I got it. I've been meaning to reply to it, but I'm horrible when it comes to replying to PMs. I'll get to it over the weekend.

[elSicomoro]

In the US, we call snow flakes that turn to rain as they fall, then refreeze before they hit the ground sleet.

In Canada (or at least in Southern Ontario), they are apparently called ice pellets.

I think I like the Canadian term better. Though it makes me wonder if they have a different term for "hail."

[Uryoces]

In Canada (or at least in Southern Ontario), they are apparently called ice pellets.

Those come from Arctic Hares, I thought.

I heard a local announcer on NPR by way of KPLU [Pugetropolis, again] refer to them as ice pellets.

Sounds like Tom Shane is trying to say the Shane Company started in Seattle.

I remeber Fanta soda/pop/soft drink -- I've heard them all here, I use soda -- used to be in the stores, but I haven't seen them for years.

[Generic_Mitigational_Statement]The US and Canada have survived pretty well together and in themselves for a great long while. There have been ups and downs, but we've all survived.[/Generic_Mitigational_Statement]

I will now stop using mock markup-language tags.