> If there's a proposal that Nevada should be the nuclear dump site of the nation, how would the structure of the house or senate stop that kind of thing? What if Nevada is just a trading item between two powerful parties? What does the constitution even say about this?
> What Gavin Newsom is implying here, IMO, is that there's responsibility (and thus power) being left on the table. Due to this vacuum, even Jeff Bezos or Jack Ma could step in. What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
And how do the delineations of American states align to the delineations of the most salient lines of power in the US, such as money? How does it provide balance?
I just talked about a scenario where the negotiation is between two parties and the proposal is a national site for nuclear waste in Nevada. And that's not a very nationally energizing issue, so that wouldn't even be a very interesting priority to be traded on.
I then talked about a scenario where during an international emergency its money that talks, even Jack Ma's money. What does having equal senate votes matter here?
We seem to be safeguarding some old boundary that fails to negotiate with the real lines of power. Party and Money.
> What Gavin Newsom is implying here, IMO, is that there's responsibility (and thus power) being left on the table. Due to this vacuum, even Jeff Bezos or Jack Ma could step in. What about the structure of congress speaks to this?
And how do the delineations of American states align to the delineations of the most salient lines of power in the US, such as money? How does it provide balance?