3 ms·

This has been california's strategy for about the past 30 years, trying to write laws so it is too onerous for businesses to only comply with them in CA. It's a

This has been california's strategy for about the past 30 years, trying to write laws so it is too onerous for businesses to only comply with them in CA. It's a violation of the principles of federalism and should be smacked down, and california should be harshly penalized for doing so.

hirundo 4y ago
> It's a violation of the principles of federalism and should be smacked down I see your point, but smacking down a state for having different principles is a violation of the principles of federalism. If federalism means anything, it includes the freedom for a state to make its own experiments in democracy as long as they don't cross enumerated federal powers. If this bill treats people from different states differently then it is vulnerable to the commerce clause, but that isn't clearly the case.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  Right, but a state can't e.g. cut off a river to do something with the water then be like "lmao it's an experiment in democracy, cry about it". The internet is an interstate "thing" where we can't even 100% say who is where so this kind of regulation absolutely violates federalist principles.
  - hirundo 4y ago
    > The internet is an interstate "thing" where we can't even 100% say who is where so this kind of regulation absolutely violates federalist principles. California regulation has affected people outside of the state since long before the internet. If that's enough to toss out federalist principles and to handcuff a state beyond constitutional justification, then federalism is quite weak. Your argument seems to be that federalism should be ignored here in order to protect the integrity of federalism. I'm not understanding how that works. BTW, I very much disagree with California's direction here. I moved out of the state after growing up and living there for 37 years because of this kind of policy making. But as a federalist I value their independence more than their correctness.
paxys 4y ago
> It's a violation of the principles of federalism Quite the opposite. This is exactly the definition of federalism.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  This impacts the entire world. Commerce clause is applicable here.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  There is a tension between a State government's right to regulate activity within the state, and the Federal government's right to regulate activity between States. Here the key question regarding interstate commerce should be about who must comply with this law (if it becomes law). California wants it to be "businesses" with a "nexus" in California, but that seems like rather expansive. But finding a more limited way to specify "California businesses" that isn't also de-fanged is very difficult in today's world. Still, now, suppose that Texas or Florida had conflicting laws? Then what?

hirundo 4y ago

> It's a violation of the principles of federalism and should be smacked down I see your point, but smacking down a state for having different principles is a violation of the principles of federalism. If federalism means anything, it includes the freedom for a state to make its own experiments in democracy as long as they don't cross enumerated federal powers. If this bill treats people from different states differently then it is vulnerable to the commerce clause, but that isn't clearly the case.

collegeburner 4y ago
Right, but a state can't e.g. cut off a river to do something with the water then be like "lmao it's an experiment in democracy, cry about it". The internet is an interstate "thing" where we can't even 100% say who is where so this kind of regulation absolutely violates federalist principles.
- hirundo 4y ago
  > The internet is an interstate "thing" where we can't even 100% say who is where so this kind of regulation absolutely violates federalist principles. California regulation has affected people outside of the state since long before the internet. If that's enough to toss out federalist principles and to handcuff a state beyond constitutional justification, then federalism is quite weak. Your argument seems to be that federalism should be ignored here in order to protect the integrity of federalism. I'm not understanding how that works. BTW, I very much disagree with California's direction here. I moved out of the state after growing up and living there for 37 years because of this kind of policy making. But as a federalist I value their independence more than their correctness.

paxys 4y ago

> It's a violation of the principles of federalism Quite the opposite. This is exactly the definition of federalism.

Robotbeat 4y ago
This impacts the entire world. Commerce clause is applicable here.
cryptonector 4y ago
There is a tension between a State government's right to regulate activity within the state, and the Federal government's right to regulate activity between States. Here the key question regarding interstate commerce should be about who must comply with this law (if it becomes law). California wants it to be "businesses" with a "nexus" in California, but that seems like rather expansive. But finding a more limited way to specify "California businesses" that isn't also de-fanged is very difficult in today's world. Still, now, suppose that Texas or Florida had conflicting laws? Then what?