Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what the article I linked was about. Not only are they outbidding–they're actually TAKING supplies that states already paid for. This thread goes into more details: https://www.city-data.com/forum/wash...materials.html
Thanks, but that still isn't the example I asked for and is very different from the federal government taking already delivered items from the state. Heck, taking charge of items in progress would be lawful under interstate commerce, even if I might disagree with it. Its an entirely different thing--both legally and otherwise--for the federal government to seize already delivered and stored goods from a state. And if the federal government had the power to seize it by law, "hiding" the goods wouldn't stop them. Again, I see this as a paranoid blue state governor.
... I've heard of cases where the federal government has essentially outbid states for PPE orders and taken delivery itself of those goods to distribute to the states as needed. This move here by Hogan doesn't appear to be supported by any facts on the ground and reeks of paranoia. Hence, my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Thanks, but that still isn't the example I asked for and is very different from the federal government taking already delivered items from the state. Heck, taking charge of items in progress would be lawful under interstate commerce, even if I might disagree with it. Its an entirely different thing--both legally and otherwise--for the federal government to seize already delivered and stored goods from a state. And if the federal government had the power to seize it by law, "hiding" the goods wouldn't stop them. Again, I see this as a paranoid blue state governor.
You just moved the goalposts. Now it's not about outbidding, but instead that the government took the already paid for supplies away before they reached the place they were headed. (Try using that in court. "Your Honor, he hadn't made it home with his computer, so I didn't really steal it.") Plus, it's happening in blue states, so everything's copacetic (even though it's happening in red states too–but they are secretly blue states because they aren't in lockstep with Trump). Got it.
You just moved the goalposts. Now it's not about outbidding, but instead that the government took the already paid for supplies away before they reached the place they were headed. (Try using that in court. "Your Honor, he hadn't made it home with his computer, so I didn't really steal it.") Plus, it's happening in blue states, so everything's copacetic (even though it's happening in red states too–but they are secretly blue states because they aren't in lockstep with Trump). Got it.
Wow, my head is spinning from all that!
No, I didn't.
This is what I wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Tell me of one case where the federal government has taken PPE supplies ordered and delivered by states I've heard of cases where the federal government has essentially outbid states for PPE orders and taken delivery itself of those goods to distribute to the states as needed. This move here by Hogan doesn't appear to be supported by any facts on the ground and reeks of paranoia. Hence, my post.
I explicitly delineated cases where the federal government has taken PPE supplies ordered AND delivered by states. You provided an example of where the federal government intercepted a shipment paid for by states and in transit. That is not the same as a shipment being ordered and delivered (i.e. in the state's physical custody).
Again, there is clear constitutional authority under the interstate commerce clause for the federal government to seize things in transit. But that is very different from the federal government seizing property that has already been delivered and is in the state's custody. Again, you have failed to provide such an example. Hogan's response--supposedly out of fear of something that has not happened--appears to be that of a paranoid blue state governor with zero basis in law or practice to fear such an action.
You providing the earlier example showed that the efforts of the federal government went beyond what I had heard. It did not rebut my position of there not being cases of the federal government seizing PPE shipments ordered and delivered by states.
IMHO, if Jared can state that the national stockpile of PPE doesn't belong to the states, then the states have every right to keep any medical supplies they have paid for with state funds for themselves. It all equals out.
I explicitly delineated cases where the federal government has taken PPE supplies ordered AND delivered by states. You provided an example of where the federal government intercepted a shipment paid for by states and in transit. That is not the same as a shipment being ordered and delivered (i.e. in the state's physical custody).
So, let me get this straight - the administration is either to lazy, stupid or incompetent to put a national procurement/supply chain in place and abdicates all responsibility for the states - outright telling the states they are on their own and they need to get their own supplies... When the states DO find and order supplies and they are en route, it's fine for the federal government to re-route them and then dole them out to whomever is in favor that day - leaving states high and dry. Why, on earth do the Feds need the supplies if they are not in the supply business and are not delivery clerks?
I notice you said the shipment was paid for by the states and in transit.... did the government reimburse the state? I'm betting not.
... Again, there is clear constitutional authority under the interstate commerce clause for the federal government to seize things in transit. But that is very different from the federal government seizing property that has already been delivered and is in the state's custody. Again, you have failed to provide such an example. Hogan's response--supposedly out of fear of something that has not happened--appears to be that of a paranoid blue state governor with zero basis in law or practice to fear such an action.
Clear constitutional authority or not, it was wrong. There was no reason for Jared's minions to take supplies that were headed to states, especially since the states weren't refunded. And it's not like those stolen supplies are being redistributed where they are needed most. Instead, they went to Jared's personal stockpile.
Looks like Governor Larry Hogan "trumped" the shoplifters though with the "Larry Hogan Don't Like Thieves Act".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've heard of cases where the federal government has essentially outbid states for PPE orders and taken delivery itself of those goods to distribute to the states as needed. This move here by Hogan doesn't appear to be supported by any facts on the ground and reeks of paranoia. Hence, my post.
