6 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoRight, 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.