Excellent. In contrast to the strawman that liberals want some sort of comand-and-control beauracracy authority in Washington, this is how it is really supposed to work. While a minimum national baselines may be mandatory in some areas of environment and interstate commerce, States are still free to set their own standards that meet or exceed minimum national baselines
States Rights
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
cawacko
Well-known member
How did you know? Damn, didn't think I'd get caught. Now I feel like the New England Patriots. I've been sitting here all day hitting refresh on my e-mail waiting for my Ron Paul talking points memo to be able to respond to this.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Interstate commerce is under Federal oversight.
This is a bad idea in and of itself, and not for the Fed reason.
So states shouldn't be free to set their own minimum wage laws, as long as they either meet, or exceed the federal minimum standard?
The States have the right to make laws that they believe will attract the best of citizens. If they believe that making cars more expensive for their citizens attracts the best of citizens then it is their right to do so. Interstate commerce sets a minimum limit, states can and have exceeded those limits on many things, including minimum wage, air standards, etc.
uscitizen
Villified User
Funny thing at the country store the other day.
A couple of Bush supporting farmers were whining over how much they were having to pay illegal immigrants to work now
I managed to hold in my laughter.
And this is all under the table cash money, minimum wage is not involved.
or maybe it is in a competitive sense.
A couple of Bush supporting farmers were whining over how much they were having to pay illegal immigrants to work now
I managed to hold in my laughter.
And this is all under the table cash money, minimum wage is not involved.
or maybe it is in a competitive sense.
Last edited:
TheDanold
Unimatrix
I agree, abolish the EPA and let states set their own environmental regulations adjusted to their own differing environments.
Wherein those cases where pollution affects more than one state, then let the governors come to agreements themselves, just as they do with other matters like bridges for instance.
uscitizen
Villified User
And who will arbitrate if the states cannot come to agereements Dano ?
Umm I think this is why were are where we are today on this.
Already been there done that, didn't work.
cawacko
Well-known member
Funny thing at the country store the other day.
A couple of Bush supporting farmers were whining over how much they were having to pay illegal immigrants to work now
I managed to hold in my laughter.
And this is all under the table cash money, minimum wage is not involved.
or maybe it is in a competitive sense.
Because I'm into self torture I have to ask, how do you know the political leanings of these farmers?
uscitizen
Villified User
They make no secret about it.amazingly enough seem proud of being Bush supporters ....
Part of that 36%.
somehow they think that liberals are to blame for illegal immigrants charging more money for work...
Actually, this is the purpose of the interstate commerce clause, not your minimum standards nonsense. However, I see no need for it here. Locals are preferrable.
I will now wait for ib1 to admit his error. But not likely even when he is shown conclusively to be full of shit (i.e., right to smoke bs) he fails to acknowledge error.
I will now wait for ib1 to admit his error. But not likely even when he is shown conclusively to be full of shit (i.e., right to smoke bs) he fails to acknowledge error.
Individual states have been regulating fuel standards for years, if not decades, with nary a complaint heard here.
Again, I agree with the ruling. Who's using a strawman?
My point is, that the purpose for the interstate commerce clause is to avoid myriad regulations meant to punish out of state manufacturers. Allowing one state to set different standards on items effecting interestate trade means that all will, in effect, be held to the highest state standard. If anything, there might be more need for the feds to set a maximum (before ib1 or someother retard jumps the gun I am not arguing for any such thing) not a minimum, since the manufacturers are going to look to make their product to the standards of the largest possible market.
I really don't see a need for the feds either way though.
My point is, that the purpose for the interstate commerce clause is to avoid myriad regulations meant to punish out of state manufacturers. Allowing one state to set different standards on items effecting interestate trade means that all will, in effect, be held to the highest state standard. If anything, there might be more need for the feds to set a maximum (before ib1 or someother retard jumps the gun I am not arguing for any such thing) not a minimum, since the manufacturers are going to look to make their product to the standards of the largest possible market.
I really don't see a need for the feds either way though.