The law, dubbed “the law that kills,” was so broad it prevented local ordinances that mandated things such as water breaks for construction workers.

  • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    1 year ago

    “States’ rights” was supposed to mean “small government” and “local control”. The recent shift toward preemption of local ordinances pulls back the veil and proves that the argument only held sway because there were disproportionately more conservative states than conservative voters at the national scale. Now they’re shifting power back upwards and away from citizens because there are disproportionately more conservative states than conservative cities. States are their last holdout where institutional power hasn’t yet been sufficiently and consistently diluted by their decline in numbers. They don’t give a single, solitary shit about “small government”. They give a shit about conservative government. Everything else, to them, is illegitimate.

    • lolcatnip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      States rights meant preserving slavery. Any other meaning is a retcon.

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        And even then it wasn’t really States’ Rights. The Fugitive Slave Act forced northern free states to treat escaped slaves as though they were “self-stolen property” rather than people who escaped from being slaves.

        Conservatives are all about states’ rights only if it absences their goals. If a large federal government would advance their goals better (for example, continuing slavery or banning abortion), then they’ll ditch states’ rights quickly.

  • Rapidcreek
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    Abbott will declare himself king of Texas before he’s done. Texas Republicans will go along with it.

  • Hairyblue@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are less Republicans and they want to force their beliefs and ideas on the majority. They don’t want young people voting. They are working on ways to stop this.

    Stop voting for Republicans. They don’t believe in our democracy.

    • lolcatnip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also start voting. Too many Texans think they’re too cool to vote.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t really want anyone voting except maybe the in group. Hence the various means of voter suppression of minorities.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, signed a bill into law in June that prohibited cities from passing certain local ordinances.

    District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble of Texas announced the decision on Wednesday in response to a lawsuit from the city of Houston.

    “I am thrilled that Houston, our legal department, and sister cities were able to obtain this victory for Texas cities,” Mayor Sylvester Turner of Houston wrote in a statement.

    "The Office of the Attorney General has also immediately appealed because the ruling is incorrect.

    Texas saw protests from construction workers and their allies who said that an end to local water break mandates would result in more incidents of heat-related illness and death.

    “While we expect an appeal, it remains clear this law is an unacceptable infringement on the rights of Texans and cities.”


    The original article contains 312 words, the summary contains 137 words. Saved 56%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!