A couple of questions for US forum members

[gordo]

I'm asking for clarification, not argument, for a couple of questions that I haven't found answered on the interwebs.

1 - My understanding is that in the US the individual states have more power within their borders for things such as laws and social services than does the federal government. That means they are responsible for their own individual response to any emergency (health, environmental, etc) affecting the state. If the emergency is greater than what they can handle then they have the option to ask for federal assistance (e.g. FEMA after flooding or a tornado). So, the individual states are responsible for dealing with the corona virus themselves - until its exceeds their ability to deal with it on their own.

Is my understanding correct?

2 - Trump stated that: “When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total and that’s the way it’s got to be. … It’s total." My understanding is that because he declared a "national emergency" over coronavirus, that declaration greatly expanded the powers of the presidency. Declarations of a national emergency have been proclaimed many times in the past in the US to deal with specific events. So, perhaps that is the context in which he made the total authority statement - he just didn't provide the context when speaking publicly.

Is my understanding correct?

 

[michaelejahn]

@Gordon - there is no understanding Trump. Even Trump does not understand Trump.

 

[gordo]

@Gordon - there is no understanding Trump. Even Trump does not understand Trump.

That didn’t answer my post :-(

 

[SoggyWinter]

1 - pretty much. 2- no, that absolute authority doesn't exist except maybe in martial law situations. Emergency declarations pertain more to funding, but they provide other temporary flexibility.

 

[prwhite]

1. The individual states grant authority to the Federal Government, not the other way around.
2. The President is bound by the powers granted to the office by the Constitution and is subject to regulation by both houses of congress and arbitrated, if necessary, by the Supreme Court (checks & balances). The office does gain additional powers in a national emergency, but not that of a monarchy.

 

[Schnicklefritz]

Gee, I guess I was under the mistaken impression that this was a printing forum...

 

[PricelineNegotiator]

Gee, I guess I was under the mistaken impression that this was a printing forum...

I think that our forum should not allow the discussion of any politics. It gets nasty quickly. I have a lot of respect for Gordo, but he needs to understand that any of his recent posts can never go over well - on the internet at least.

 

[Schnicklefritz]

I myself have pretty strong political opinions formed over the years. I love to debate these things in the proper environment but I thought PrintPlanet was meant to be just a place to address the issues in our industry. Anyway, political differences can get overly emotional and personally, I can live without the melodrama.

 

[gordo]

I think that our forum should not allow the discussion of any politics. It gets nasty quickly. I have a lot of respect for Gordo, but he needs to understand that any of his recent posts can never go over well - on the internet at least.

I’ve tried to not get into politics (note the caveat in my original post). I believe the reason this part of the forum “What you think” was set up as a place where things off topic could be talked about. So, off print topics are on topic.
I ask the questions here because I have a sense of the people here and I respect their opinions. The US is a very different culture compared to Canada which makes it sometimes difficult to understand the whys and significance of the actions it takes. And we have such a close relationship to the US that I think it’s important for us to try and understand what’s going on and how it impacts “regular” people. You guys are, after all, “where the rubber hits the road.”

 

[tngcas]

It's all more complicated and nuanced than that. At the federal government level - each branch has specific powers. The declaration of a national emergency gives the President traditionally gives more access to emergency funds and emergency powers but even those are limited. The President can try to do a lot of things but then either Congress or the courts can limit those actions. The same is true on the State level. Each state governor has broader powers within their borders by declaring an emergency and access to more resources but if they abuse those powers it can be limited by the federal level actors (Congress, President, Courts) or local level actors (mostly the courts).

It's all complicated an messy but the long and short of it is... they have as much power as the people allow them to have. I.E. if the people violate the local state governing orders then the governors can issue rules (arrest those people, fine them) but then those people have the option to respond by suing in local or federal courts. Additionally, at the super local level, Mayors and Local Police and Sheriff can choose not to enforce those rules, which is why you have sanctuary states and cities. If a Mayor or Governor chooses not to follow national guidelines or state guidelines the people "above them" can try to enforce their rules in the courts but if a lot of people refuse the federal government or state goverments can't spend all their time going after them in courts. Pick and choose your battles. Lastly, not following guidelines issued by people "above" you opens up your particular level of government to being sued by people who might claim that if you hadn't violated those guidelines their loved ones might not have died etc. etc. And finally, if you do everything wrong enough, people can vote those governments out of power.

 

[tngcas]

To build off my previous statements with a more specific example: If the President says open up the economy and a particular State Governor or particular City Mayor decides to wait weeks and months to do so, the federal government can limit the emergency funding available to those areas. Those states risk damaging their economies with no help from the federal government to recover. Businesses might sue the state for refusing to allow them to go back to work and the burden of proof will be on the State to prove it was justified in ignoring the Federal timeline.

 

[smalloffsetpressexperts]

I'm asking for clarification, not argument, for a couple of questions that I haven't found answered on the interwebs.

1 - My understanding is that in the US the individual states have more power within their borders for things such as laws and social services than does the federal government. That means they are responsible for their own individual response to any emergency (health, environmental, etc) affecting the state. If the emergency is greater than what they can handle then they have the option to ask for federal assistance (e.g. FEMA after flooding or a tornado). So, the individual states are responsible for dealing with the corona virus themselves - until its exceeds their ability to deal with it on their own.

Is my understanding correct?

2 - Trump stated that: “When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total and that’s the way it’s got to be. … It’s total." My understanding is that because he declared a "national emergency" over coronavirus, that declaration greatly expanded the powers of the presidency. Declarations of a national emergency have been proclaimed many times in the past in the US to deal with specific events. So, perhaps that is the context in which he made the total authority statement - he just didn't provide the context when speaking publicly.

Is my understanding correct?

The fundamental difference is Democrats preach big government that dictates how we live, eat etc. Being held accountable for missing money

@Gordon - there is no understanding Trump. Even Trump does not understand Trump.

@Gordon - there is no understanding Trump. Even Trump does not understand Trump.

LOL
inappropriate off topic venting.
Do not trash the USA or our President please. Your questions are bait sometimes to drive traffic?

 

[gordo]

It's all more complicated and nuanced than that. At the federal government level - each branch has specific powers. The declaration of a national emergency gives the President traditionally gives more access to emergency funds and emergency powers but even those are limited. The President can try to do a lot of things but then either Congress or the courts can limit those actions. The same is true on the State level. Each state governor has broader powers within their borders by declaring an emergency and access to more resources but if they abuse those powers it can be limited by the federal level actors (Congress, President, Courts) or local level actors (mostly the courts).

It's all complicated an messy but the long and short of it is... they have as much power as the people allow them to have. I.E. if the people violate the local state governing orders then the governors can issue rules (arrest those people, fine them) but then those people have the option to respond by suing in local or federal courts. Additionally, at the super local level, Mayors and Local Police and Sheriff can choose not to enforce those rules, which is why you have sanctuary states and cities. If a Mayor or Governor chooses not to follow national guidelines or state guidelines the people "above them" can try to enforce their rules in the courts but if a lot of people refuse the federal government or state goverments can't spend all their time going after them in courts. Pick and choose your battles. Lastly, not following guidelines issued by people "above" you opens up your particular level of government to being sued by people who might claim that if you hadn't violated those guidelines their loved ones might not have died etc. etc. And finally, if you do everything wrong enough, people can vote those governments out of power.

Thanks for that comprehensive answer. Very helpful to understanding what’s going on.

 

[kdw75]

The liberal states tend to need money, so they ask for help from the federal government, who then uses money from the fiscally sound states to bail them out. I am looking at you California.

 

[gordo]

The good news is that it appears that 4 or 5 states will be qualified to reopen starting as early as tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if that propels Canada to follow suit.

 

[tngcas]

Food for thought for you @gordo on the reasons you're getting pushback from people about political posts that you don't recognize as politcal.

American's really don't like to mix politics with work. Unfortunately, right now, not only do we not like to, for a lot of us, we literally cannot afford to. Business owners and employees in the United States are routinely losing their businesses and/or jobs because they made a remark that hints or states which side of the fence they were on in an area where that was an unpopular side to be on. Both sides are doing this regularly now. It's a very scary thing to a business owner/employee to have all your hard work disappear overnight because of one idle remark made on social media OR in a public forum like this.

If there ends up being a whiff that this forum is going to be politicized -- a lot of us cannot afford to comment on public policy and unfortunately that includes making specific comments regarding the actions of the President, whether we are for or against them personally - our livelihoods are at stake.

 

[gordo]

@tngcas Thanks for that. I didn’t realize that asking how US systems work would be considered, or prompt, a political response and that might be problematic for members.

 

[Slammer]

Food for thought for you @gordo on the reasons you're getting pushback from people about political posts that you don't recognize as politcal.

American's really don't like to mix politics with work. Unfortunately, right now, not only do we not like to, for a lot of us, we literally cannot afford to. Business owners and employees in the United States are routinely losing their businesses and/or jobs because they made a remark that hints or states which side of the fence they were on in an area where that was an unpopular side to be on. Both sides are doing this regularly now. It's a very scary thing to a business owner/employee to have all your hard work disappear overnight because of one idle remark made on social media OR in a public forum like this.

If there ends up being a whiff that this forum is going to be politicized -- a lot of us cannot afford to comment on public policy and unfortunately that includes making specific comments regarding the actions of the President, whether we are for or against them personally - our livelihoods are at stake.

Wow, that is a downright Orewllian statement, both in it´s scope and consequenses.

 

[prepressdork]

The liberal states tend to need money, so they ask for help from the federal government, who then uses money from the fiscally sound states to bail them out. I am looking at you California.

FYI - Which States Rely the Most on Federal Aid? | Tax Foundation

 

[prwhite]

Thanks for that. I didn’t realize that asking how US systems work would be considered, or prompt, a political response and that might be problematic for members.

This, in and of itself, is not political. It does become problematic when personal & negative opinions are posted about one political party or person. When prejudiced opinions that openly slam one side against another are voiced, this is when a discussion becomes political and sometimes results in being deleted as inappropriate.

This is a printing forum about all aspects of the printing business, but political comments are unwelcome, i.e.: Democrat vs. Republican, left leaning vs. right leaning, conservative vs. liberal --- all gross generalities. However, we all have opinions & sometimes it's difficult to suppress them. Twitter seems to be the platform for doing this, but they are not welcome on this forum.