• ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    No, there is legal precedence for this

    Under NAFTA states could impose their own tariffs because NAFTA was a Federal agreement and countries would have to negotiate free trade with individual states

    This is just the reverse of that

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      16 hours ago

      As a non-American, the more i learn about US states, the more I realise that the country is more like a reluctant confederation than an actual unified country.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Yeah, it made sense when a horse was the fastest way to travel over land. These days? We’re stuck with a ridiculous government structure designed when no one knew how democracies worked.

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Amen to that. It’s very stupid and backwards, but a whole lotta idiots think that the founders were inspired by their god (Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah) and that this kind of thing was handed down on stone tablets.

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        15 hours ago

        It tore itself apart in a civil war 72 years after its constitution was written, and the only reason why it didn’t happen again was because it got fat off of being the only power left standing after the world wars.

    • slickgoat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      The whole “no legal precedence”. Has been a thing for a few years now. We have what used to be called chaos nowadays.