looming challenges to federalism
Friday, November 26th, 2004 11:02 am
» and the arctic is melting, 2004-11-10 (score:24)
» bushwreck, 2007-10-25 (score:22)
» same-sex marriage decisions, 2004-10-06 (score:22)
i’ll be interested to see how the conservative, pro-federalism, pro-states’ rights, GOP-run government (and the conservative intelligentsia which carries their theoretical water) handles some of the upcoming challenges to federalism:
- medical marijuana laws
- state & regional initiatives on global warming: for instance, California’s mandatory cap on greenhouse-gas emissions will have to be signed off on by the EPA before it goes into effect
algorithmically similar posts:
» Lake Tahoe heating up, 2004-12-21 (score:33)» and the arctic is melting, 2004-11-10 (score:24)
» bushwreck, 2007-10-25 (score:22)
» same-sex marriage decisions, 2004-10-06 (score:22)
[...] any other astonishing quotes are courtesy of the Terri Schiavo case – the latest mad rush by Republicans to abandon their much-vaunted dedication to federal [...]
James Loewen writes, in his book Lies Across America, that “states rights” is the call of whatever party doesn’t control the presidency. The Republicans made a lot of noise about it during the Clinton years, but will likely have to adjust their position now. Some will likely point out, however, that the unspoken Republican tenet (at least since the early 1900s) is “might makes right.” Sadly, the Bush administration has already supported challenges to local environmental regulations. I can’t remember the specifics, but a federal court struck down a California law that required clean-burning busses and trucks in the state. Maybe Republicans are more tolerant of cognitive dissonance than liberals. Maybe they don’t care.
States Rights
LQ wrote at lquilter.net about looming challenges to federalism
i’ll be interested to see how the conservative, pro-federalism, pro-states’ rights, GOP-run government (and the conservative intelligentsia which carries their theoretical water)