Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrRoboto75]

Right before the civil war iirc

And then the civil war happened iirc

[Naturegirl1999]

Oh boy, I hope there’s not a Civil War II

[Lord Shonus]

I read a book (America's Original Sin) that has some interesting points about about how one of the problems with modern police culture is that somewhere in history, and especially American history, the modus operandi of police changed from guardians to warriors.

We could go a long way to improving law enforcement by moving back to a guardian sensibility rather than a warrior sensibility. You can even keep them armed - having armed guardians is notably different than armed warriors.  It's all about the mindset and approach.

I mean, stateside the whole shit and caboodle originated with goddamn slave hunters. There's no "guardian" to go back to, the institution's roots are possibly even worse than its present, or at least terrible in different ways.

Slave patrols started in the 1840s. Most police departments on the East Coast (read - everywhere that was US before the 1840s) can be traced back to before that. New York had constables back when it was New Amsterdam.

[martinuzz]

2021: Shellshocked starved refugees from civil war-torn USA are washing up on the shores of Africa after Mexico has finished building a wall to keep them out.  EU makes a deal with Erdogan to keep them in detention camps awaiting asylum procedures.

[dragdeler]

-

[Max™]

People also forget that prior to the traitors trying to secede it hadn't been tested and there were no provisions to stop it.

There are now.

There's also the problem that it isn't a "red states vs blue states" problem, it's a bunch of blue cities with loose spatterings of morons around them but america is so fucking big there is enough room for a massive number of morons and the people using those morons for their purposes make sure to gerrymander shit where possible and rile the stupid fuckers up into a hateful bigoted broth of dumbfuckery.

[LordBaal]

Can somebody explain me why and how the fuck can a state sue another state? And what is supposed to happen if they win? Monetary retrubution? They keep the children of their failling marriage? If they loose can they be sued back?

It seems either way to mean awful lots of money on legal fees alone and the perfect cluster fuck of good old hate among otherwise identical people.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

States can sue other states on the basis that they've violated each other's rights under the federal Constitution. It doesn't happen often. They can ask for whatever restitution they want, not that they're likely to get it.

[wierd]

Conceptually, it would be akin to having say, France sue Italy, even though both are in the EU.

Say for instance, Italy selling bubbly wine and calling it Champaign.

[da_nang]

If there's a court for it, then you can sue for it. More so in America than in the EU since American tort law is a bit more fucked up.

[LordBaal]

Ok, it just really weird, among countries ok, it would seen more normal, and a far more civil way to settle petty stuff despite lawyèrs most likely being the only ones winning at the end.

Nevertheless, hope it does not escalate from there, as unlikely as it seems.

[Starver]

Conceptually, it would be akin to having say, France sue Italy, even though both are in the EU.

Say for instance, Italy selling bubbly wine and calling it Champaign.

Well, that's already covered. Not the country of Italy, itself, but the producer/vendor falsely claiming a 'champagne' outwith the area of Champagne. And then usually challenged by the local equivalent of Trading Standards (or Customs, if imported) in any country that cares to enforce the PDO/PGI/whatever. (And given that Italy has its own Protected origin stuff, it's unlikely not to clamp down on its own bogus producers if it finds out first.)

The ECJ is probably the 'SCOTEU' we'd be talking about in equivalent state-vs-state legal battles (though it's usually individiduals or effective-individuals sueing for a overturning of a (different) state's actions or inactions they claim as 'unconstitutional' or similar). Despite what many say, inter-EU disagreements at state level tend to be done as normal national diplomatic business between the sovereign states, not  utterly controlled by the apparently all-consuming 'bEUrocracy' of shape-shifting lizards.

The closest equivalent I can think of, off the top of my head, is the EU parliament officially decrying (ineffectially?) the recent Polish internal election process/outcome, but that falls short in several important ways.

[Dostoevsky]

Regarding one state suing another, if I recall this has mostly come up in the realm of water rights between two states (e.g. a river running through two states). Might have been a fight over border boundaries a few times, too.

(Interstate pollution could/would be covered here as well, but environmental statutes have generally preempted that and provide alternative means of resolution.)

The idea being that this original jurisdiction for such disputes would reduce the risk of punitive shenanigans in the halls of congress or other existing federal institutions where states have to regularly interact.

[LordBaal]

I propose each state has its own standing army so the elector counts governors can duke it out to solve their issues.
If anyone tries to be too clever in any way the president comes down in a griffon and uses the offending governor as feed for the griffon.

[nenjin]

I would like to represent the state with all the Hellstorm Rocket Batteries that go BBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRR. That would be, I believe, Ohio?