US links $1.9B in state disaster funds to Israel boycott stance | Hacker News Reader

US links $1.9B in state disaster funds to Israel boycott stance

reuters.com

28 pointsJimmc41412 comments

Open articleView on HN

Hard to reconcile this with an 'America First' position.

Who runs this country? Sure doesn’t seem like Americans do.

https://archive.is/HW49s

States rights huh?

I don’t agree with the Trump admin on this but I don’t understand what your comment is meant to say.

Conservatives argue for states rights when it benefits them, and ignore them when it conflicts with their ideology. Schrödinger's policy stance.

This is beyond conversative vs liberal.

I am using the most charitable labels possible considering the topic, while still communicating the concept.

The GOP in the US often would be upset by federal rules and involvement in state level issues. Their rallying cry was "states rights" arguing that given states should be able to make decisions themselves without the federal government telling them what to do.

Often those complaints involved arguing that the federal rules put forth really have / should have nothing to do with the funds in question.

Sometimes I think they were right. But the truth is the GOP has no real ideology they'd stick to these days, they're happy to do what they decry, in spades.

Here they are happy to inject support for Israel in disaster relief funds ...

I guess what was confusing is that the most vocal use of “states rights” that I am aware of came in the lead up to the Civil War when the Democrats used the idea of states rights to try and keep their slaves.

I can’t think of an instance of it being used in modern times. I know many GOP led states opposed federal covid mandates but again, I just can’t recall any of them using the phrase “states rights.”

It was a common refrain among the GOP for at least the past few decades.

Firearms regulations. Abortion regulations. Marijuana legalization. It's been in the political vernacular for a hot minute if you know somebody who takes issue with Wickard v. Filburn.

Which might just be me I guess. But yes, other than the more notorious example taught in schools, it is still an important component of the political system that is putatively intended to curtail Federal overreach. In point of fact, it's arguable State's Rights may be one of the the few remaining bulwark against a federal government being increasingly co-opted to try to force the entire nation to operate in the same way. Frankly, I find this anti-BDS non-sense to be the single most unamerican thing out there, tantamount to co-option of the Federal governments mandate to handle foreign diplomatic relations and projecting it through a layer of domestic funding distribution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com