Corporate Interests & Democracy's Death Knell

This should give people something to think about the next time they hear a wingnut complaint about the how the 10th amendment protects you from tyranny. As if reserving the right for state government tyranny hasn't historically proven to be a very immediate concern. What democracy is involved with the way we regulate beef and pork labeling? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

On the other hand states are not above setting traffic fines ridiculously high to gather revenue. IIRC Virginia at one time during the past recession enacted 'Abuser fees' that were charged on top of regular traffic fines that were so high that a serious speeding violation had the possibility of throwing people who were struggling financially into abject poverty. The laws only applied to instate drivers. In that case the legislature received enough public heat to drop the increases.How about states like NC refusing to let municipalities enact living wage legislation or refusing to let cities pass sales tax increases even by public referendum? How about when the state votes as a whole that your particular city cannot have gay civil unions?The fracking law issue is worth considering on its own. In every state that considers implementing fracking policy, there will be corporate pressure on the state to allow the fracking frackers to hide the exact chemicals they use, to limit the leverage of people who 'hold out' against allowing fracking on their land, and to 'unify' the law in the state by prohibiting local legislation. The corporate interest normally get most of what they want, but there does seem to be a tendency to tell the public to BOHICA that is strongly correlated by which party happens to be in charge at the state level. This stuff is unfolding in NC right now. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Seriously, Jon. Your statement above is straight wing nut, BS rhetoric. The goals of the WTO are far from nefarious. Participation in the WTO is voluntary, and nations join or stay out solely based on their own interests in trading with other members. Further there is a process within the US for evaluating which agreements to sign onto and which not to sign onto. The US as a whole benefits enormously from WTO membership.You would expect that in such an organization that the goals agreed upon are not going to match national goals of any one country. The US is only subject to rules that they've agreed to. Accordingly, even when they do things Jon does not like they are not subverting US sovereignty. The WTO cannot do that. All they can really do is require that the US pay the assessed fines that they've agreed to pay if they don't follow the agreement. In some cases the US chooses to do exactly that.Assuming that the proper process is followed, the treaties signed by the US have equal weight as a source of law as the US Constitution. The Supreme Court can do diddly squat about that.How old are you Jon?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I suppose that this is a good time to remind you that your own definition of democracy includes an armed rebellion when election results don't go your way despite your attempts to rig the election in your favor (i.e. the Wilmington Massacre). Your definition of democracy and the rule of law don't exactly constitute any kind of high road in human evolution.If you really understand that no laws are broken, just what do you expect the Supreme Court to do?At least in the case of fracking there are relatively strong voices on each side of the issue. You can likely find prominent leaders who would likely be extremely interested in making sure you don't see a repeat of the Texas situation in your own town. If you are really concerned about how this stuff is going to work out, get off your pasty white and do something about it. I recommend something other than a massacre though.Yeah, I'm talking to you Jon.

I'm replying to the poster known variously as Jon, Agamemnon, and CreationJon who posted the naive, wingnut BS about the WTO, and who apparently could not navigate his way through high school level civics if his life depended on it.Is that not you, Jon?

Some animals are more equal than others.

Not accurate. Instead what has happened is that something that the people want to be a local decision has been elevated to state politics. The entire state may have an interest in the tax revenue generated by fracking, so the entire state and not just the nearest local people get a say.To change things you have to affect politics on a state level. There is no obvious reason why deciding things on the state level should be defined as undemocratic.Some place within your state is going to be the site for handling the waste your state generates. Somebody is going to decide how much water everybody in the state gets to use out of some river that wanders from town to town. And the correct decision is not to let individual towns vote to hog all the water or to let everybody vote to ship the garbage everywhere but their own town.I understand that the locals feel that only their votes should count, but fracking affects jobs in nearby counties and may affect the economy of the entire state which in turn affects how much money gets spent on educating everyone's kids and whether or not the state can afford to give poor people health care. Many people in the state, even those who live nowhere near the fracking sites have an interest.