> In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law. [0]
An EU law is an international treaty. Can the Senate kick out the US president and refuse to agree to the treaty he signed?
[0] https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm
Also between the date something pass at EU level and during the delay to transfer directive governments changes, parliament electives can be reelected, etc.
"Regulations and decisions become binding automatically throughout the EU on their date of application. However, they may require changes in national legislation, and may require implementation by national agencies or regulators."
"Directives on the other hand, must be incorporated by EU countries into their national legislation. Each directive contains a deadline by which EU countries must incorporate its provisions into their national legislation and inform the Commission to that effect."
source: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying...
That doesn't mean they have the right to ignore the directive and not decide on a law but there is definitely more leeway.
I don't fully understand the logic of this kind of legislative process. If the EU can make it binding on member states to introduce a certain law, why not perform the entire process at an EU level? If there is some benefit to delegating the task, then why not include the possibility of a national veto at implementation stage, when the nation is more fully informed? It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism.
Just like the EU itself, it's a compromise. Every member state wants to have its cake (economic benefits) and eat it, too (full sovereignty).
That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration.
The EU Parliament is probably the only parliament in the world that I know of, that can't introduce new laws.
Anyway, I'm not entirely sure that it is a standard EU compromise. The governments wrote the rules in the context of what must surely be constant disagreements between the parliaments and the governments (at least if the politics of my own non-EU country is anything to go by). I can't believe they didn't know what they were doing - taking power from their own colleagues in parliaments.
That's the compromise :-) I forget when exactly it happened, but I'm quite sure it coincided with an increase in the scope of EU responsibilities.
But it is not socially or politically integrated with China.
Same could be said with US/Mexico, China/Taiwan, etc.
The European Project sees social and political integration as ends themselves.
It uses economic advantages as a way to convince voters to adopt policies that aren’t economically required.
No, it's not. It is slightly economically integrated, and mostly in terms of physical goods.
Are American IP laws applicable in China and the other way around? For example when licensing a Disney movie in the US, can I distribute it in China?
Do you get warranty in China for any good sold in the US and vice versa?
Do both countries use, by law, the same systems of measurements?
That's what deep economic integration looks like.
In fact, the Canada has all three in common with the EU.
But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.
> But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.
Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union
> After the war on 19 September 1946 Chruchill went further as a civilian, after leaving office, at the University of Zürich, calling for a United States of Europe
> To ensure Germany could never threaten the peace again, its heavy industry was partly dismantled (See: Allied plans for German industry after World War II) and its main coal-producing regions were either awarded to neighbouring countries (Silesia), managed as separate directly by an occupying power (Saarland) or put under international control (Ruhr area)
> The founding fathers of the European Union understood that coal and steel were the two industries essential for waging war, and believed that by tying their national industries together, a future war between their nations became much less likely.
The EU was always a political union.
> Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history:
…
> The EU was always a political union.
I'm confused, because it seems that you and your parent are saying the same thing. Did you misread them as saying the EU doesn't want political integration?
I'm saying that a) it was always the plan and b) it's good.
> I'm saying that a) it was always the plan and b) it's good.
As someone who thinks the EU's mission of political integration is a good thing, I think jumping from "someone seems not to think that it's a good thing" to "they don't understand the history of the EU" is less than civil. Even if you and I both agree with the program, surely it is possible to understand it and yet disagree with it?
Contrary to the expectation of everyone, the EU is mostly an economic body. It has other missions, but those are nowhere as popular or as effective as economic integration.
Cultural integration? EU cultural policy is focused on preserving local cultures, not promoting a Pan-European culture. They want a pan-European culture. They just don’t know how to make it.
Are there EU-wide sports leagues? EU wide award shows? Irish authors brag when they get shortlisted for the Booker Prize, not when they get some obscure EU award.
Political integration? What’s the turnout on EU elections?
Military integration? I read something about some experimental “European” unit somewhere. But there are probably more Germans in the French Foreign Legion than there are soldiers in the “EU” military.
The EU is a failure at everything except economics.
They want to do more. They really do. It’s “in the cards.”
And my original complaint was that the EU justifies non-economic measures using economic logic. Why? Because despite the despite the cultural, military, and political goals, the EU is mostly an economic entity,
But an economic union based upon mandatory liberal economics is certainly not what anyone had in mind before 1989.
Edit: A good example is freedom of movement. Originally, this was a cultural policy decided to make “Europeans.”
It’s failed. When Poles move to Ireland, they and their descendants become Irish, not European.
So the EU justifies it by talking about an “integrated labor market.”
The EU does not insist upon "open borders".
The single market (EU) seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms".
Article 45 covers the relevant things that the EU "insists" on including the restrictions the EU "insists" on - https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457
Perhaps you mean the external border of the EU - Article 3 covers that one, and the EU does have requirements that it insists on for this border. It obliges Member States to carry out systematic checks against relevant databases on all persons, including those with the right to free movement under EU law when they cross the external borders. i.e. they actually insist that it is a closed border.
I think the open borders thing is that you can't have an open internal market, unless workers can move freely across borders, as well as goods and capital. That is, it really is about economic integration.
That's not really the case. Many countries have economic ties with other coutries but no political or social ties. For example, the US imports most of the Uranium that it uses, but that doesn't mean political and social integration between the US and Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Russia or Namibia. [1]
[1] 47 million lbs imported in 2021. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu...
* 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.
Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet many states have legalized it.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-mar...
Sorry for the weird question, non us here o/
>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.
Jurisdiction be jurisdictin'.
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".
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.
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.
So have US states actually passed statutes against murder, as opposed to simply setting the penalties for it?
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”.
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.
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.
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”.
The same process is how every other EU wide regulation goes into effect. EU passes it, the member states get their input during the EU process, and the member states are then obligated to abide by the rules.
An analogous process, which is not a perfect analog but is similar, is how US federal rules get passed down to the states. The states get their input on federal legislation at the federal level, but then must abide by the resulting federal law.
I'd also add that giving every country a veto on any legislation would basically guarantee nothing gets done.
Another big difference is that the state governments themselves have no representation in the federal government since the passage of the 17th amendment.
States have zero input on federal legislation (except constitutional amendments, which are rare, and not really "legislation").
Until the 17th Amendment, states had input via the Senate, but now that senators are elected directly by voters, states have no formal representation at the federal level.
You're now a criminal if you offer your webspace for free and someon3 uploads anything unlawful in the broadest sense.
Thanks EU corruption.
> There are justifications for using a directive rather than a regulation: (i) it complies with the EU's desire for "subsidiarity"; (ii) it acknowledges that different member States have different legal systems, legal traditions and legal processes; and (iii) each Member State has leeway to choose its own statutory wording, rather than accepting the Brussels' official "Eurospeak" terminology.
> For example, while EU Directive 2009/20/EC (which simply requires all vessels visiting EU ports to have P&I cover) could have been a regulation (without requiring member states to implement the directive), the desire for subsidiarity was paramount, so a directive was the chosen vehicle.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Act_of_the_European_Unio...