5 ms·

I think this could "devolve" naturally to states. California is already making noises about its own enforcement efforts. Maybe even more so with health care/in

by a3n 10y ago

I think this could "devolve" naturally to states. California is already making noises about its own enforcement efforts. Maybe even more so with health care/insurance, since people who are dying can see themselves die every day, while it's a bit easier to ignore "the environment." I'd like to see states, probably led by California, possibly with New York and Washington, start their own single-payer system, open to any state that wants to join, contribute and comply. Because I'm kinda tired of being a football kicked back and forth every two years for nothing but political points.

throwaway5752 10y ago
Wait until you see what abuses of power and logic they can achieve now with power in all three branches. CA won't be able to enforce a thing. "States rights" as a slogan was accurately described by Atwater, there is no real principle there.
- a3n 10y ago
  Your garden hoses and cars are greatly influenced by California's large market and their regulations. Your textbooks are greatly influenced by California and Texas. Large states, or groups of states, can influence things by simple scale, if it's not practical to go against them.
  - throwaway5752 10y ago
    I know this, what's your point? What if the EPA drops regulation of lead in garden hoses, Congress introduces a bill that says "states cannot have more stringent regulations for lead in garden hoses than the EPA", the president signs it, and the legal challenge to it reaches the Supreme Court where it's defeated 5-4? You take it for granted that states have certain rights historically, and that the current government will respect established norms and rules (and failing that, the institutions of government that should protect against this will not fail). My point is you should not take that for granted any more.
    - a3n 10y ago
      My point is exactly that, that states do have a right to self-regulate, notwithstanding constitutional questions. The end-position that you describe would be terrible, but it's very possible. But I don't think the states would go down without a fight, and I don't think the Supreme Court should ever be looked at as a slam-dunk; many Presidents have learned that lesson. It would be a very awkward argument that the Feds know garden hoses best, at the same time that the Feds are saying that States know health care best. And courts so far have shown themselves willing to consider what this administration has said in recent history about the Muslim/Travel ban to judge intent and constitutionality. So the two self-contradicting points of view ("We know best," "they know best") are likely to get some scrutiny. Just because things look dark doesn't mean it's over. Even if you're a cynic.

by a3n 10y ago

throwaway5752 10y ago

Wait until you see what abuses of power and logic they can achieve now with power in all three branches. CA won't be able to enforce a thing. "States rights" as a slogan was accurately described by Atwater, there is no real principle there.

a3n 10y ago
Your garden hoses and cars are greatly influenced by California's large market and their regulations. Your textbooks are greatly influenced by California and Texas. Large states, or groups of states, can influence things by simple scale, if it's not practical to go against them.
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  I know this, what's your point? What if the EPA drops regulation of lead in garden hoses, Congress introduces a bill that says "states cannot have more stringent regulations for lead in garden hoses than the EPA", the president signs it, and the legal challenge to it reaches the Supreme Court where it's defeated 5-4? You take it for granted that states have certain rights historically, and that the current government will respect established norms and rules (and failing that, the institutions of government that should protect against this will not fail). My point is you should not take that for granted any more.
  - a3n 10y ago
    My point is exactly that, that states do have a right to self-regulate, notwithstanding constitutional questions. The end-position that you describe would be terrible, but it's very possible. But I don't think the states would go down without a fight, and I don't think the Supreme Court should ever be looked at as a slam-dunk; many Presidents have learned that lesson. It would be a very awkward argument that the Feds know garden hoses best, at the same time that the Feds are saying that States know health care best. And courts so far have shown themselves willing to consider what this administration has said in recent history about the Muslim/Travel ban to judge intent and constitutionality. So the two self-contradicting points of view ("We know best," "they know best") are likely to get some scrutiny. Just because things look dark doesn't mean it's over. Even if you're a cynic.