GOP supports "state's rights and small federal government"

[atomheartbevo 89630]

3 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Bullshit.  The thread is States Rights vs. Federalism.

 

You say States Rights vs Federalism

I say States Rights vs Corporate bottom lines.  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

California makes rules that California wants for California.

The impact of those rules on other States or huge corporations that want to standardize their offerings across the entire nation is not California's fault. It's just more corporate crying. Do you believe in States' Rights or not?

There are SCOTUS cases that invalidate these types of laws on commerce clause grounds because a local law unduly burdens interstate commerce.  My guess is Trump will win this lawsuit.

[Incredulity 11657]

16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

You say States Rights vs Federalism

I say States Rights vs Corporate bottom lines.  

Profit isn't a dirty word.

Where do you think all the money Liberals want to spend comes from?

[atomheartbevo 89630]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Profit isn't a dirty word.

Where do you think all the money Liberals want to spend comes from?

It’s not a dirty word, but they are trying to fuck us, and they are using government-granted monopolies to do it. 

Lest we forget, while many of us in Austin May have 3-4 choices for decent internet service, we have plenty of family and friends who have only one decent choice, or a decent choice and a shitty choice. 

[Ollie Slatt 289]

This thread reminded me of law school when we had to go though all of the commerce clauses cases chronologically up through Gonzales v. Raich, which is a case worth reading for anyone interested in this issue.   You dip into the case law and it becomes very clear that some conservatives (Rehnquist) actually do care about states' rights.  Others (Scalia) care about it only up to the point where the consequences become politically unpalatable for them.   

In this instance, there is an obvious interstate element -- certainly a lot more of an impact on interstate commerce than homegrown medical MJ, which was at stake in Raich.  From a legal perspective, the Feds should probably be able to win the case.  And rightly so.  But that does not change the hypocrisy.  We had many decades of conservatives bloviating about states being a laboratory for new ideas, a substantive 10th amendment, etc. They largely abandoned those principles when "states rights" stopped being code for protecting racists and started being code for states liberalizing MJ laws and trying to protect the environment. 

 

[Gil Bang 25922]

CA is the nation's leader on environmental matters. How many states have adopted CA Air Resources Board (CARB) standards for everything from cars to laminate flooring?  A dozen?  Two dozen?

[David Dennison 18851]

6 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Profit isn't a dirty word.

Where do you think all the money Liberals want to spend comes from?

Labor.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

21 hours ago, Ollie Slatt said:

This thread reminded me of law school when we had to go though all of the commerce clauses cases chronologically up through Gonzales v. Raich, which is a case worth reading for anyone interested in this issue.   You dip into the case law and it becomes very clear that some conservatives (Rehnquist) actually do care about states' rights.  Others (Scalia) care about it only up to the point where the consequences become politically unpalatable for them.   

In this instance, there is an obvious interstate element -- certainly a lot more of an impact on interstate commerce than homegrown medical MJ, which was at stake in Raich.  From a legal perspective, the Feds should probably be able to win the case.  And rightly so.  But that does not change the hypocrisy.  We had many decades of conservatives bloviating about states being a laboratory for new ideas, a substantive 10th amendment, etc. They largely abandoned those principles when "states rights" stopped being code for protecting racists and started being code for states liberalizing MJ laws and trying to protect the environment. 

 

I had thought at first glance that this was a pretty clear cut case of federal preemption.  But apparently not.  By couching its repeal of net neutrailty rules as an invalid exercise under TItle II of the Telecom Act, and by telecoms arguing that there is no consumer protection authority under Title i, the FCC has opened the field to state regulation geared to consumer protection.

 

Hahahaha.

 

The problem, as I see it, with Commerce Clause cases, as they have been decided in recent history, is that any connection to interstate commerce is sufficient to supply legislative jurisdiction to Congress, no matter how attenuated that connection may be and no matter how vague or nonexistent the federal interest in regulating the field may be.

Edited October 2, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29347]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I had thought at first glance that this was a pretty clear cut case of federal preemption.  But apparently not.  By couching its repeal of net neutrailty rules as an invalid exercise under TItle II of the Telecom Act, and by telecoms arguing that there is no consumer protection authority under Title i, the FCC has opened the field to state regulation geared to consumer protection.

  

Hahahaha.

The best people.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The best people.

Actually, the strongest part is the telecoms invalidating the first NN regs as invalid under Title I.  They kinda fucked themselves.  And that happened pre-Trump.

[Ollie Slatt 289]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I had thought at first glance that this was a pretty clear cut case of federal preemption.  But apparently not.  By couching its repeal of net neutrailty rules as an invalid exercise under TItle II of the Telecom Act, and by telecoms arguing that there is no consumer protection authority under Title i, the FCC has opened the field to state regulation geared to consumer protection.

 

Hahahaha.

That is interesting and very funny.  I had just assumed California was doing this more as a political stunt . . . I never considered that the feds failed to preempt state action. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31440]

12 minutes ago, Ollie Slatt said:

That is interesting and very funny.  I had just assumed California was doing this more as a political stunt . . . I never considered that the feds failed to preempt state action. 

 

I'm sure it will be hotly contested, but it doesn't seem that it's a slam dunk.  There must have been some awareness of the issue, because, as I recall, the FCC regs specifically forbade the states from enacting NN legislation.  That is super-odd for federal regs when the preemption is quite clear.