Not for long.
Why would a military guy like DeSantis even try to prevent federal agents from doing anything in Florida? He was a Lieutenant commander in the Navy. He’s familiar with federal government protocols.
You’d have to ask the sponsors of the bill that question.
If someone kidnaps a child and takes it across state borders, it becomes a federal crime. In order for this bill to have any effect at all, it would have to somehow prevent federal agents from pursuing kidnappers into their state.
Maybe this was just a really badly thought out bill, maybe they are assuming that DeSantis will be president by then, and will prevent federal agents from enforcing federal human trafficking laws.
It’s hard to say how much thought they put into the costs and consequences, but it certainly shows what they want to do.
“defining the term “serious physical harm” for purposes of warrants to take physical custody of a child in certain child custody enforcement proceeding”
I looks like they’re defining serious physical harm to include “Treatments for Sex Reassignment;”. Here’s the bill. I apologize if this has been linked to up thread already.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/254
DeSantis is also a lawyer who served as an Assistant US Attorney. He is very aware of federal precedence and the problematic legality of attempting to impose Florida law across state lines. This is a stunt just to rile conservatives about “Federal overreach” and promoting the idea of “states’ rights” so that when he makes a run for the Presidency he can campaign on his history of support for those issues as a discriminator versus Trump, Haley, Christie, et cetera.
Stranger
I don’t think he’s a Fascist. But any right wing Republican these days seems to exhibit Fascist tendencies.
It would take a special candidate for me to vote Republican. He isn’t one, and I haven’t seen one during my life time.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Labels don’t matter. Actions do.
Point your shotgun at it and pull the trigger.
With luck it won’t come to that, but I’m not all that confident we won’t have pitched battles in the streets between gangs of armed irregulars on both sides…
Modnote: please avoid advocating violence, even in jest.
This was a little much, even if not directed at a specific person.
So if DeSantis wants to be a facist dictator, he needs to implement absolute control over the federal government. But one of the tenets of conservatism is ‘more authority for legislation at the state level’. I think I’m missing something.
Your missing that the tenets of conservatism have nothing to do with today’s Republican party.
I would very much like to hear your definition of “very liberal”, considering the rest of what you write.
I’m not missing the tenets, I miss politicians that would support them.
The logic?
That they’re not going for full-on, 50-state fascism, but increasingly authoritarian state governments with less and less federal oversight, not only allowing for ≤ 50 fascist states, but also increasing the political and cultural disunity of the 50 states?
I imagine that the number of actively fascist states would be zero, but the number of authoritarian states would be higher.
There is a kind of residual fascism built into 20th-century America, when this crop of leaders grew up. I had to sign that I wasn’t a Communist in order to be employed by the University of California, which I’m pretty sure is a violation of my First Amendment rights of freedom of association (unless someone wants to argue that public universities are not government). And that’s famously liberal California.
I would be interested to learn more about the logic of politics. I did a couple google searches. Are there any links you could share? Thanks.
It isn’t what you are missing; it is what you are assuming, to wit that there is an underlying and consistent ideology even if DeSantis is appealing to “states’s rights” now. DeSantis wants to undermine federal authority under the control of a Democratic President to give more power to the states under the assumption that Republican-dominated states will elect him by hook or crook, and then figure out from there how to get authoritarian control over the Federal government by appealing to the majorities in those same states and utilizing the strong conservative bent in the federal courts.
“States’ rights”, by the way, has never been about the ability of states to govern free from federal interference beyond Constitutional authority and protection; it has always been a code-speak for imposing moral-ish standards, applying social and economic restrictions, and restricting the franchise to only ‘preferred’ voting demographics, i.e. white males. The encroachment of Federal authority over things like environmental regulation, motor vehicle speed and sobriety limits, educational standards, et cetera, is real but to be expected as people are far more mobile, business interests and economies overlap between states, and environmental impact of pollution and water use have such far reaching impacts to the extent that it doesn’t make sense for one state to impose legal mandates that are distinct from adjacent states. Most reasonable people do not think that ending desegregation, ensuring voting rights for black citizens, or having a mandated intoxication limit for drivers are bad things to have nationwide, but it is really easy to get people worked up over “The Feds” imposing environmental regulations or assuring access to legal abortion even if the consequences are massive pollution spills and women in septic shock.
DeSantis isn’t really concerned about Federal overreach, and he was at the door of FEMA and calling the White House for relief funds before Hurricane Ian made landfall. He just wants to make a show of how far-to-the-right he is even compared to the normal far-right rhetoric and distinguish himself from the pack. And his methods for scapegoating immigrants and LGBTQ+ people are even pretty extreme compared to his “Freedom Caucus” brethren, putting him in the company of people like Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene, except instead of being consider a wackadoodle outlier in a larger group of representatives he’s the governor of a populous and politically powerful state with the ability to make his rhetoric into legal action via executive authority. This is governor who spent Florida taxpayer money to fly immigrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard. He’s not a “small government, fiscally conservative Republican”; he’s a political stuntman looking to make points with voters who feel disenfranchised and ignored by Democrats and mainstream Republicans, and to build up support from that base in the same way that Trump did in 2016.
Stranger
Definitely funnier. Its said Gavin Newsome left California during the snow event. Ted posted I hear Cancun is nice this time of year.
I disagree. Local Government isn’t about applying social and economic restrictions. I think it’s more about representation at the local level. The US is a big country, and local politicians better understand local populations.
In fact, scholars have found that the increase in Black Americans in these regions led to growing efforts like redlining in northern metro areas to keep Black Americans and other immigrants in specific areas and prevent them from moving into predominantly white neighborhoods. Consequently, Black families had little opportunity to build generational wealth.
The most direct way that urban governments have attempted to segregate their populations is through the adoption of explicitly racial zoning ordinances. Passed by cities between 1910 and 1917, these ordinances prohibited members of the majority racial group on a given city block from selling or renting property to members of another racial group. Walsh and co-author Werner Troesken’s work8 suggests that prior to the adoption of these laws cities had created and sustained residential segregation through private norms and vigilante activity. Only when these private arrangements began to break down during the early 1900s did whites begin lobbying municipal governments for the passage of segregation ordinances. While these ordinances are salient indicators of racial attitudes in the early 1900s, continual court challenges reduced their direct impact on segregation. The potential efficacy of segregation ordinances was effectively ended in 1917 by the landmark Buchanan v. Warley decision, in which the United States Supreme Court struck down a racial zoning ordinance adopted by Louisville, Kentucky.
Blue laws, or Sunday laws, are laws that limit commercial and entertainment activities on a certain day, typically Sunday, for religious observance and rest. Most often, blue laws bar the sale or purchase of alcohol. Though blue laws have a historically religious basis, therefore raising constitutional concerns under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, they were upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of McGowan v. Maryland. The Court’s decision left the implementation and enactment of blue laws to each state.
There is a long history of state and local governments quite definitely engage in the application of social and economic restrictions in ways that are at least ostensibly in violation of Constitutional principles, and the term “States’ rights” is historically intertwined with slavery, most notably in the Dred Scott v Sandford decision:
The Supreme Court, in a contentious opinion written by Chief Justice Taney, held that persons of African descent were not citizens of the United States. The Court reasoned that, at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, persons of African descent were brought to the U.S. as property, and, whether later freed or not, could not become U.S. citizens. Even though many states granted citizenship to African Americans, the Court distinguished state citizenship from federal citizenship, and found the later precluded to African Americans because of whom the Court believed the founders meant to include in the original Constitution. Native Americans, on the other hand, were considered free and independent residents of North America at the time of the founding, so they could be federal citizens of the United States. As this applied to Dred Scott, he could not sue for his freedom from his time spent in the (at the time) federal territory of Wisconsin because, as the Court interpreted the Constitution, African Americans could simply not become federal citizens.
The concept of state sovereignty to rule over its citizens independent of the Federal government, including the repatriation of enslaved persons owned by citizens of a state permitting the ownership of human slaves, led to the American Civil war and ultimately the 14th Amendment which is the source of the concept of “equal protection under the law” for all citizen of the United States and forms the essential basis for modern civil rights theory and the precedence of the Federal government in cases where state and local laws seek to deny enumerated and recognized rights.
State, county, and municipal governments still oversee and support many aspects of civil life and vital entitlements such as school systems, police and fire departments, public health services, parks and recreation departments, local environmental monitoring and regulation, et cetera. But the notion that they should be able to do so independent of the Constitution and Federal authority in areas of equal protection and freedom from arbitrary restriction of civil liberties is the fundamental core of what people mean when using the term “states’ rights”.
Stranger