site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   Edited 3yr ago   20118 thread views

USA Election Day 2022 Megathread

Tuesday November 8, 2022 is Election Day in the United States of America. In addition to Congressional "midterms" at the federal level, many state governors and other more local offices are up for grabs. Given how things shook out over Election Day 2020, things could get a little crazy.

...or, perhaps, not! But here's the Megathread for if they do. Talk about your local concerns, your national predictions, your suspicions re: election fraud and interference, how you plan to vote, anything election related is welcome here. Culture War thread rules apply, with the addition of Small-Scale Questions and election-related "Bare Links" allowed in this thread only (unfortunately, there will not be a subthread repository due to current technical limitations).

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The problem is that if you argue that governments are NOT allowed to rescind these special districts, even through proper legislative action, for virtually any reason whatsoever, you're forced to accept that these corporations have some legal entitlement to said districts.

Which is also to cede the state's authority over political entities created by said state.

Which is just silly.

Not really, any more than signing a contract ever limits your rights. Saying that a sovereign state can't sign a contract limiting its own sovereignty gets too into "Could an omnipotent God create weed so dank he could not smoke it?" territory for me; but suffice it to say that whatever the proper procedure for unwinding an RCID type special district is, it isn't by legislative fiat motivated by momentary political spats.

The powers in question are based in the Florida Constitution.

If the Constitution doesn't limit the Government from dissolving the districts, what contract, specifically, would do so?

but suffice it to say that whatever the proper procedure for unwinding an RCID type special district is, it isn't by legislative fiat motivated by momentary political spats.

Who, specifically, is authorized to set that procedure, do you think?

I'll do half the work for you. Here's the actual body of law involved:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2015/Chapter189

There's a general principle that a legislature cannot bind a future legislature. Otherwise, any time a party got control of a legislature, it would pass as many laws as possible that limit the scope of action of future legislatures. As such, voiding a contract made by a previous legislature would require compensation as per the Takings Clause, but is a wholly permissible use of legislative power.

As such, voiding a contract made by a previous legislature would require compensation as per the Takings Clause, but is a wholly permissible use of legislative power.

Is that happening here and I missed it? I'm not as familiar with the current state of play as I should be given how much shit I'm talking in this thread. Genuinely, I'm not saying that the RCID can never be revoked, or even that it oughtn't to be, merely that my understanding is that it is not a "win" for Florida at the end of the day, it is likely to end up costing Florida money to no obvious benefit.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats