[ta1243]

Three groups passed this law

* The EU Commission (headed by commissioners appointed by the government of the members, 1 per member)

* The EU council (makde up of the heads of government of the members, 1 vote per member) - so sort of in line with US senate as originally enacted (where the state government chooses the senators)

* The EU parliament (voted directly by the population, broadly in line with the population, although smaller members get more MEPs per person) - so broadly in line with US congress

in the US, I believe states have to meet federal laws, they can't pass a law saying "murder is legal" or whatever. It's an imperfect system, but so is the US system.

[SllX]

Not quite. It’s overlapping jurisdiction and overlapping sovereignty.

Murder would still be illegal under common law, but let’s take your hypothetical and say that it wasn’t, and say that a state didn’t have a statute against murder: the Federal Government could prosecute under Federal law in the Federal court system.

The States have no obligation to charge under that same Federal statute though, and in fact can’t because it’s not their law.

[xeromal]

Great distinction. It's how states get away with making weed "legal" even thought its illegal federal. Today, a federal agent could easily charge with you having a schedule 1 drug on your person in California and it would easily ruin your life. Banks generally won't deal with weed stores for this very reason so California had a vote to make it's on state-run bank but I can't remember if it passed.

That said, I don't think federal agents ever charge anyone primarily for possessing weed though I wouldn't be surprised if they add it on to an additional charge.

[Mountain_Skies]

A couple decades ago, Alabama had no state law against prostitution, relying on the counties to have such laws, which all of them did. But there were certain parts of the causeway over Mobile Bay that weren't claimed by the adjacent counties, leading to small buildings used for prostitution being erected on some of the built-up land next to the road. Not sure about the outcome, going to guess the state DOT claimed ownership of the land, even if no county exerted jurisdiction, and used state law to have the buildings removed.

[SllX]

Huh. That is interesting and this is why I never take anything for granted in State laws and am willing to only speak in very very broad generalities about “the States”.

A piece of land being outside of a “county” isn’t something that could happen in my State because the counties are effectively administrative divisions that encompass all the lands and waters of the State so where one county ends the next begins up until the State and national borders anyway. Beyond those lines, it’s somebody else’s problem.

[dfawcus]

Murder is not illegal under English Common Law, it is unlawful.

So have US states actually passed statutes against murder, as opposed to simply setting the penalties for it?

[SllX]

> Murder is not illegal under English Common Law, it is unlawful.

Correct, and thanks!

> So have US states actually passed statutes against murder, as opposed to simply setting the penalties for it?

I don’t have a state-by-state breakdown, but if you murder someone in any State, you can be prosecuted for it by that State. You can check Florida Title XLVI Chapter 782 to see what their Homicide Statute defines as “Murder”.

[vageli]

> in the US, I believe states have to meet federal laws, they can't pass a law saying "murder is legal" or whatever. It's an imperfect system, but so is the US system.

Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet many states have legalized it.

[gizmo686]

There is no federal law requiring States to enforce federal drug policy. The inability of the federal government to compel state laws has been a source of tension throughout US history.

For a non-controversial, consider the drinking age in the US. To a first approximation, this was set by Congress in 1984 with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. However, this law doesn't actually set a drinking age. It witholds federal highway funding from states that refuse to do so.

For a more controversial example, consider the medicaid expansion portion of the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not compell states to implement it, allowing some states to not do so. For completeness, I should point out that the expansion was 100% federally funded to start with, and dropped gradually to 90% by 2020, where it is set to remain indefinitely.

Another major example from US history is the Fugitive Slave Act, which required non-slave states to assist in returning escaped slaves. Some Northern states refused to coorporate with this law and was part of what led to the civil war. (Ironically, this is probably the clearest way that "states' rights" was a cause of the civil war, but I don't think it is what most people have in mind when they say "states" rights".

[zxcvbn4038]

I don’t believe the states have to embrace everything the federal government says - see marijuana and enhanced IDs as examples. However the federal government often ties receiving federal funds to passing and enforcing federal policy. So don’t want to issue identification documents in compliance with the real ID act? Loose a portion of the highway funds. Want legal pot? Loose a portion of the highway funds. And so on.

[weberer]

State law can't override federal law. They have just instructed state police to not enforce that specific law. You could still be convicted by the FBI if they were to get involved for whatever reason, such as selling across state lines.

[frankreyes]

Is that what Biden un- did with the pardons?

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-mar...

Sorry for the weird question, non us here o/

[weberer]

No because the law is still active. You would need congress to repeal or amend it. Or the supreme court to rule it unconstitutional. Also this just pardons people who were convicted in the past.

>Does the proclamation protect me from being charged with marijuana possession in the future?

>No. The proclamation pardons only those offenses occurring on or before October 6, 2022. It does not have any effect on marijuana possession offenses occurring after October 6, 2022.

[toyg]

Interstate trade of marijuana is illegal, even between states that legalized trade inside state borders.

Jurisdiction be jurisdictin'.

[treeman79]

Constitution gives federal government certain rights. Everything else is up to states. So states could declare murder legal. But would probably fail as a 1st amendment violation. Which is part of the constitution is above federal law.

Now the constitution grants federal government, the right to regulate interstate commerce. Which has been abused horribly to regulate things that have nothing to do with interstate commerce.

[s1artibartfast]

It's also worth highlighting that in the US Federal representatives are democratically elected by the constituents whereas EU commissions are appointed. The US has Federal commissions called committees, but they have less legislative power

[toyg]

EU commissioners work in partnership with elected Members of EU Parliament (MEP), for the simple reason that it makes no sense to write laws that MEPs will then veto.

[ta1243]

Who voted for the US Secretary of State?

[SllX]

Those aren’t exactly commissions. They’re an organizational and productivity scheme of the Legislative branches through which they subdivide work between sitting democratically elected legislators. If something makes it out of committee, it can make it to the floor, but no committee is committing legislative acts on its own.

There are Executive agencies called “commissions”, but they don’t have bonafide legislative power, so much as a scheme by which they try to reinterpret the legislation that authorized their existence and outlined their powers and jurisdiction to accumulate to themselves more authority such that a Court will occasionally step in and say “naw dawg”.

[s1artibartfast]

This is basically what I am trying to say. Sorry if it wasnt clear.