State could dissolve Alameda County with a pen stroke

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by 101101, May 13, 2020.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    A quick look at a Wikipedia reference shows maybe 100 former US counties.

    From a basic understanding of some elements of American civics it would seem that political theater is hyping the power being afforded Alameda county for apparently overreaching actions that wouldn't be sustainable and seem bizarre. There are a few flavors of county but all of them are fictions of the state. They are mere gardens for cities which are primary political constituents. Cities out live nation states. Cities also come in a few flavors but all are primary. Cities with some restrictions can do what they want. It goes Mayor, Governor, President. Speaker of the House and Senate Majority leader aren't really stops along that path nor is VP. Counties with their CEOs and CAOs and boards of supervisors don't really count. They are mere sand boxes or support systems for cities. As at best an arm of a state but really a fiction of a state the State of California could merge Alameda county into the surrounding counties and there isn't a damn thing Alameda county or the surrounding counties could do about it especially if their constituent cities didn't object. For any residents not incorporated into a city in Alameda that sought to stop it they would have to form a city to have a voice or go straight to their state reps.

    So when you have the President, and the Treasury Secretary and the Governor and the Mayor of Fremont saying to Alameda stop playing games it looks a little strange. Alameda as long as it had the support of the state could make some things difficult for Fremont but presumably it would lose when challenged.

    So this nonsense where they are hiding behind language as if county agencies had force they don't really seem to have is probably theater. They seem to be trading in the language of court jurisdictions but that is something way beyond counties except where counties try to play the corrupt game of defunding for instance to tort courts and making criminal courts resort to having police officers randomly ticket people to fund the criminally defunded operation of criminal or tort courts- it can go that way, but surely that could backfire too especially if cities objected. But the state issuing guidelines for the county to follow is not resignation or handing over of the state's police power. The State can erase the county but it can't delegate its police power, it is not like court jurisdiction either. The state just issues guidelines which counties can follow or not but cities should override that and the state surely can. Again, counties are just fictions the state sets up to make it easier for citizens to establish cities and for the purpose of citizens setting up their own jurisdictions- that is the purpose. Neither the city nor the state relinquishes its jurisdiction to any county. The primary jurisdictions will be the city of Fremont and neighboring cities. This just makes sense because people know how they want to live and the US system respects this.

    Every level of government above the County of Alameda including the primary jurisdiction the City of Fremont have said they don't like the unequal treatment of Tesla. Remember, Alameda's 6 oil refineries never shut during the closures, that is 6 toxin spewing refineries in a space smaller than LA City including the refinery in Fremont and this despite being a respiratory vector and despite a glut of crude- not necessarily gas- not saying Alemeda could have shut them because they were deemed critical- but Tesla is a power producer too and one that reduces the use of power in the way public policy demands during a time of respiratory illness. It all seems to be coming down to one junior public official who seems to have some sort of grudge against Tesla but is also caught up vaccine authoritarianism (which runs counter to policy in Japan-where results are much better.) I'd like to see the 14 cities of Alameda now issue the rebuke, against Alameda because it is still trying to be pushy where Tesla was a company with no casualties at almost ground zero in China with 7,000 employees where normal flu death rates in the US would have predicted about 7 deaths due to flu in a population that size over a year. Alameda just issued another closure order! And against a firm with more experience dealing with this than any other. They could have asked Tesla about its success instead it was shut down.
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    There is another issue here. Some of the FUD articles push Lorena as a "LAW MAKER," that is absolutely wrong. This is a consent of the
    people system, for the people by the people of the people. They are representatives. They are bound to do always what they think is in the best interest of the public. But sometimes narcissist and sociopaths and psychopaths confuse things and think its a support group for people who suffer from their particular ills and like Steve Israel did, do try to assert that first they will do what they think is in their own interests.
    If there ever was criminal intent that is it. Its much, much worse than a bank head publicly stating and intending something like, "first and foremost I enrich myself out of people's private accounts" like self a righteous skimmer. That is not a legitimate theory of public process its just criminal intent. Its true the people can't delegate their authority very effectively especially at scale but it is also true that the system exists to serve them and nothing else, there are no donors (bribers) or anything else that comes first all that is crime. It is not up to the individual elected or unfortunately selected to decide how they going to proceed, they are bound whether they know it or not and they can't skirt technicalities either. And what is the rank of these people(?) even including the President? The rank is citizen, nothing more nothing less. And note there is no allegiance to any citizen holding public office- (notice it is the public that votes whether a particular citizen serves at all and that office goes no further than actual positive service to the public.) The public's only allegiance is to the public and humanity.
     

Share This Page