Sign in to follow this  
Swimsailor

So much for States' Rights

Recommended Posts

Jeff will be along shortly to say that he's never even heard of states rights. He'll tell you he's heard of Stahts Rights but that's differnt. Guy will be concerned yet optimistic. Tom will say that corporate personhood rights should be Federalized unless they should Confederalized but that the Duopoly is preventing either or both of those. And that, children, is why we can't have nice things.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

This article could spur a thread about many things, but more poignantly, I thinks this falls under the GOP's "we're for states' rights until states start doing things we don't like" mantra.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-moving-to-block-california-vehicle-emissions-rules/ar-AAGR5ha?ocid=spartanntp

 

Quote

Two U.S. agencies are preparing to submit for final White House regulatory review a plan to revoke California's authority to set its own vehicle greenhouse gas standards and declare that states are preempted from setting their own vehicle rules, two people briefed on the matter said Thursday.

That's pretty old news. As noted GOP stalwart Justice Stevens said back in 2005,

 

Quote

 

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

    California is one of at least nine States that authorize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.1 The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States” includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.

 

The commerce power knows no bounds so the fedgov can preempt such state rules.

Noted Progressive Justice Thomas disagreed, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Jeff will be along shortly to say that he's never even heard of states rights. He'll tell you he's heard of Stahts Rights but that's differnt. Guy will be concerned yet optimistic. Tom will say that corporate personhood rights should be Federalized unless they should Confederalized but that the Duopoly is preventing either or both of those. And that, children, is why we can't have nice things.

Naw - CA can do whatever it likes.  If compliance makes them money, manufacturers will comply.  'Til the point that the crowded like sardines everywhere east of the ridge folks in CA start impacting things in my life?  They can do whatever makes 'em happy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

That's pretty old news. As noted GOP stalwart Justice Stevens said back in 2005,

The commerce power knows no bounds so the fedgov can preempt such state rules.

Noted Progressive Justice Thomas disagreed, by the way.

damn this is the perfect thread to mention tomballs is all in favor of personhood for corporate welfare queens that took loads of government $, privatized the gains and socialized the losses, and it's very important that these subsidy queens deserve more and better speech than everyone else. I'm sure he'll fuck up the date of the decision again as a totally honest mistake, because tomballs is honest and upright in debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Noted Progressive Justice Thomas disagreed, by the way.

Noted Progressive Justice Thomas did whatever Noted Progressive Justice Scalia did. 

Noted Progressive Justice Kavanaugh could not be reached for comment as he is out looking for Squee. 

Noted Progressive Justice Thomas said he'd sit on his hands until Noted Progressive Justice Kavanaugh returned unless Noted Progressive Justice Gorsuch tells him otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Naw - CA can do whatever it likes.  If compliance makes them money, manufacturers will comply.  'Til the point that the crowded like sardines everywhere east of the ridge folks in CA start impacting things in my life?  They can do whatever makes 'em happy. 

Cleaner air is such a bitch, ain’t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Cleaner air is such a bitch, ain’t it?

Of course - that's exactly what I meant - nice of your to mention it.   Did you run outta other legs to hump? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stite's Rats are only supposed to apply to discriminatin agin the nigras, homos, and the wimminfolk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Stite's Rats are only supposed to apply to discriminatin agin the nigras, homos, and the wimminfolk. 

And keeping the Damn Yankees from ever thinking that they should stay south of the Mason Dixon line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

And keeping the Damn Yankees from ever thinking that they should stay south of the Mason Dixon line. 

They own the whole place now, and yet, how often do we see the states rights argument when it involves something other than allowing the state to discriminate?  I wish I had a nice view of it, but I just don't see it used nicely anywhere. States use that shield as a sword to screw some group of people out of something...and when the feds are doing the screwing, we don't hear about states' rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

They own the whole place now, and yet, how often do we see the states rights argument when it involves something other than allowing the state to discriminate?  I wish I had a nice view of it, but I just don't see it used nicely anywhere. States use that shield as a sword to screw some group of people out of something...and when the feds are doing the screwing, we don't hear about states' rights.

CA uses it to their advantage w/the vehicle emissions and mileage requirements.  Other states seem to be using it to their advantage in the establishment of immigration sanctuary.   Not disputing your points, but, IMHO, those are a couple examples that seem to answer your question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

CA uses it to their advantage w/the vehicle emissions and mileage requirements.  Other states seem to be using it to their advantage in the establishment of immigration sanctuary.   Not disputing your points, but, IMHO, those are a couple examples that seem to answer your question. 

With emissions, who is telling them they can't be tougher than what national standards require?  I don't see that one working.  Well, with the Trump Administration all agencies are on opposite day, so the EPA might be wanting to crack down on them now.  So you might be right there. 

Immigration?  When the Chamber of Commerce wants immigration stopped we'll stop it. The Trump Immigration Crisis started out for show, and now it is a humanitarian crisis.  Before he started screwing with it, our illegal immigration rate was the lowest it had been in a decade. But local communities refusing the feds' demand that they use their resources for federal immigration issues is not a big stites rats issue either, other than states looking to recoup money for unfunded mandates. Like so many of Trumps projects both before and after he took office, someone else gets left to pick up the tab. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

CA uses it to their advantage w/the vehicle emissions and mileage requirements.  Other states seem to be using it to their advantage in the establishment of immigration sanctuary.   Not disputing your points, but, IMHO, those are a couple examples that seem to answer your question. 

It's not just CA. It's California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Trump is choosing to pick on California because picking on California gives the Republican base boners and allows for the usual cliche ridden frothy bullshit media miasma the base love to eat up.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Cleaner air is such a bitch, ain’t it?

This doesn’t effect the pollution requirements Ca has that are stricter than the rest of the country.  

But you already knew that, with your cleaner air comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

 

That's pretty old news. As noted GOP stalwart Justice Stevens said back in 2005,

 

The commerce power knows no bounds so the fedgov can preempt such state rules.

Noted Progressive Justice Thomas disagreed, by the way.

Really? so what does this part of the Constitution mean then?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

States rights, Tommy. Besides, The federal government cannot take away a state-mandated law when it exceeds the federal standard. The Clean Air Act allowed California to set its own standards because they were doing it before the Clean Air Act was passed. The EPA can't touch this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

CA uses it to their advantage w/the vehicle emissions and mileage requirements.  Other states seem to be using it to their advantage in the establishment of immigration sanctuary.   Not disputing your points, but, IMHO, those are a couple examples that seem to answer your question. 

CA uses what to their advantage? Why is it wrong to say “get those smoky fucking things off the road?”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Trump is going to go after the manufactures in an antitrust probe, because the manufacturers agreed to make cleaner and more efficient cars.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/justice-dept-launches-antitrust-probe-of-automakers-over-their-fuel-efficiency-deal-with-california/2019/09/06/29a22ee6-d0c7-11e9-b29b-a528dc82154a_story.html

The Justice Department has launched an antitrust investigation of four leading automakers over an agreement they forged with the state of California to maintain higher fuel efficiency standards than those sought by the Trump administration, escalating the stakes in the long-running battle between the White House and California.

The Justice Department declined to comment Friday, but two other federal agencies said the state’s deal with Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW of North America on gas mileage targets may be in violation of the law and warned of legal consequences.

California officials, who have repeatedly asserted the state’s rights under the 1970 Clean Air Act, criticized the inquiry as politicization to impose the Republican president’s policies.

“The U.S. Department of Justice brings its weight to bear against auto companies in an attempt to frighten them out of voluntarily making cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks than EPA wants,” Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, said in a statement. “Consumers might ask, who is [EPA Administrator] Andy Wheeler protecting

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, you folks are waaaaay behind the curve . . 

Read yourselves up on "preemption" 

Its what the "local control" Reich does when communities 

actually try to exercise local control . .  

https://www.epi.org/blog/missouris-new-preemption-law-cheats-38000-workers-out-of-a-raise/

Query - Why aren't people rioting in the streets ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

With emissions, who is telling them they can't be tougher than what national standards require?  I don't see that one working.  Well, with the Trump Administration all agencies are on opposite day, so the EPA might be wanting to crack down on them now.  So you might be right there. 

Immigration?  When the Chamber of Commerce wants immigration stopped we'll stop it. The Trump Immigration Crisis started out for show, and now it is a humanitarian crisis.  Before he started screwing with it, our illegal immigration rate was the lowest it had been in a decade. But local communities refusing the feds' demand that they use their resources for federal immigration issues is not a big stites rats issue either, other than states looking to recoup money for unfunded mandates. Like so many of Trumps projects both before and after he took office, someone else gets left to pick up the tab. 

I disagree.  I have no issue with CA having Emission standards higher than the federal standard.  Nor do I have issues with states that have tougher immigration enforcement standards than the feds.  

In either case, it would be a no no to have the standards lower than the federal one.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Really? so what does this part of the Constitution mean then?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

...

The tenth amendment means nothing in practical terms. It's a truism, say the courts. About as meaningless as the words "privileges and immunities" in another amendment.

14 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

They own the whole place now, and yet, how often do we see the states rights argument when it involves something other than allowing the state to discriminate?  I wish I had a nice view of it, but I just don't see it used nicely anywhere. States use that shield as a sword to screw some group of people out of something...and when the feds are doing the screwing, we don't hear about states' rights.

So the Stites Rats argument up in NY is just a smokescreen for discrimination and screwing over groups of people?

I actually agree but am surprised to see you say something like that about a gun control law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I disagree.  I have no issue with CA having Emission standards higher than the federal standard.  Nor do I have issues with states that have tougher immigration enforcement standards than the feds.  

In either case, it would be a no no to have the standards lower than the federal one.  

Take it up with the Chamber of Commerce. They’re the ones who fought Arizona. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I disagree.  I have no issue with CA having Emission standards higher than the federal standard.  Nor do I have issues with states that have tougher immigration enforcement standards than the feds.  

that's some nice code words you got there boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

States use that shield as a sword to screw some group of people out of something...and when the feds are doing the screwing, we don't hear about states' rights.

Selective enforcement is good for the power brokers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The Joker, relying on an unnamed anonymous source when he wants to argue, like a good little hypocritical Trumpalo.

How is using the OP’s link an unnamed anonymous source?  

Oh wait you didn’t read the link, just jumped right in with your outrage all stoked by unnamed anonymous sources.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

The tenth amendment means nothing in practical terms. It's a truism, say the courts. About as meaningless as the words "privileges and immunities" in another amendment.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in actions that criticize federal dominance over the state. In the 1997 decision, Printz v United States (remember that one)?, Justice Scalia opined "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program," Scalia said. "Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

The Founders knew exactly what they had constructed in the Tenth Amendment. To regard it in " practical terms as nothing" is a naivete that I am quite happy to not share with you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Joker said:

How is using the OP’s link an unnamed anonymous source?  

Oh wait you didn’t read the link, just jumped right in with your outrage all stoked by unnamed anonymous sources.

Because dumbfuck the "two people briefed on the matter" were never named, aka, they are anonymous. And they are the source for your talking point in the article. Now @chum will give you a pass because he's a stupid troll too who relies on herd emotions, like some cunt making money off her husbands corpse via viral videos , but other people outside the conservative troll farm have standards 

The plan would not revoke California's ability to set low emission vehicle standards that has been in place since 1990, the sources said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Because dumbfuck the "two people briefed on the matter" were never named, aka, they are anonymous. And they are the source for your talking point in the article. Now @chum will give you a pass because he's a stupid troll too who relies on herd emotions, like some cunt making money off her husbands corpse via viral videos , but other people outside the conservative troll farm have standards 

 

Ok so this whole thread is based on anonymous sources that you believe when it comes to the thread title, but don’t believe because I pointed out what the same sources said, in the same fucking story.   

  You are one mixed up cupcake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Because dumbfuck the "two people briefed on the matter" were never named, aka, they are anonymous. And they are the source for your talking point in the article. Now @chum will give you a pass because he's a stupid troll too who relies on herd emotions, like some cunt making money off her husbands corpse via viral videos , but other people outside the conservative troll farm have standards 

 

:lol: I’m really inside your head ain’t I Miss? I can show you they way out of this miserable wasteland if you let me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Ok so this whole thread is based on anonymous sources that you believe when it comes to the thread title, but don’t believe because I pointed out what the same sources said, in the same fucking story.   

  You are one mixed up cupcake.

I never commented on the OP dumbshit.

16 minutes ago, chum said:

:lol: I’m really inside your head ain’t I Miss? I can show you they way out of this miserable wasteland if you let me. 

Only because you are the perfect avatar for the fat, lazy, stupid, online, but fucking idiot, pseudo middle america Trumpalo troll that always is on message but who's health insurance can't afford him the blue pills that will give him a  boner for a real woman, not an AOC popped Fux news hate fuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

Only because you are the perfect avatar for the fat, lazy, stupid, online, but fucking idiot, pseudo middle america Trumpalo troll that always is on message but who's health insurance can't afford him the blue pills that will give him a  boner for a real woman, not an AOC popped Fux news hate fuck

:lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:

The Supreme Court has already ruled in actions that criticize federal dominance over the state. In the 1997 decision, Printz v United States (remember that one)?, Justice Scalia opined "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program," Scalia said. "Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

The Founders knew exactly what they had constructed in the Tenth Amendment. To regard it in " practical terms as nothing" is a naivete that I am quite happy to not share with you.

 

Just reporting what the court said.

Quote

In this sense, the Tenth Amendment is “but a truism.” United States v. Darby (1941).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course, y'all have long forgotten that in the early to mid 2000's 

when Ohio cities and other local jurisdictions saw the monster housing fraud being cranked up by the banksters 

the Dubya Bush admin Treasury Dept. intervened, declaring that local govts could not regulate the 

housing loan (i.e., scam) industry (some corporate Dems were also despicable) 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27121535/ns/business-us_business/t/states-warned-about-impending-mortgage-crisis/#.XXR3EShKiM8

And again, it's all about the preemption . .   

(The article cited here is actually pretty good) 

jeez I despise the One Percent, Oligarchy, Reich . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Just reporting what the court said.

 

One of the clowns you quoted actually clerked for Justice Scalia, more than once. It's hard to believe he didn't pick up anything from Scaia. The other clown is the current CEO of Legal Zoom, " Where life meets Legal" and whose other claims to fame is O.J. Simpson. I kind of wish you had found more authoritative sources.

 

54 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

In this sense, the Tenth Amendment is “but a truism.” United States v. Darby (1941).

Darby was almost completely decided using the Commerce Clause, after reading the decision, I don't know why they referenced the 10th Amendment at all. Darby was the one who raised that Amendment and the court gave it no consideration, The Commerce Clause was all but exclusively used for deciding the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Take it up with the Chamber of Commerce. They’re the ones who fought Arizona. 

The Chamber did, really?

Quote

Legal challenges over its constitutionality and compliance with civil rights law were filed, including one by the United States Department of Justice, that also asked for an injunction against enforcement of the law.[18] The day before the law was to take effect, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the law's most controversial provisions.[19] 

I was not aware the CoC controlled the DOJ or federal judges.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
12 hours ago, chum said:

:lol: I’m really inside your head ain’t I Miss? I can show you they way out of this miserable wasteland if you let me. 

Only because you are the perfect avatar for the fat, lazy, stupid, online, but fucking idiot, pseudo middle america Trumpalo troll that always is on message but who's health insurance can't afford him the blue pills that will give him a  boner for a real woman, not an AOC popped Fux news hate fuck

Yep @chum, you have seriously got this kid triggered.  Golf Clap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Darby was the one who raised that Amendment and the court gave it no consideration,

Eggs Acklee.

On 9/6/2019 at 4:33 PM, badlatitude said:

so what does this part of the Constitution mean then?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Still nothing in practical terms as I said. Can you find a case saying otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The Chamber did, really?

I was not aware the CoC controlled the DOJ or federal judges.  

Yes they did. All the way to the Supreme Court. They may control the DOJ but they most definitely did not control the courts back then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the OP is that the Reich goes on and on about the sanctity of local control . .

until it conflicts with the oligarchic agenda . .  

One of the most amazing recent ones took place in Mizzou when the government of St. Louis passed and 

implemented a minimum wage increase, and then the state legislature passed a law to the effect that localities 

could not pass such acts. Thousands of workers got an instant cut in pay. 

Americans are just so passive - why aren't they rioting in the streets ? 

Good article on preemption here  . .  

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/st-louis-minimum-wage-preemption/538182/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 3:47 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's not just CA. It's California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.

 Trump is choosing to pick on California because picking on California gives the Republican base boners and allows for the usual cliche ridden frothy bullshit media miasma the base love to eat up.

I honestly didn't know that those other states had also adopted CA emissions rqmts - appreciate being squared away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I honestly didn't know that those other states had also adopted CA emissions rqmts - appreciate being squared away. 

Don't buy a used car in CT. Ever. Waste of money. You drive it 60 miles and you are fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Don't buy a used car in CT. Ever. Waste of money. You drive it 60 miles and you are fucked.

crash it and you're even more fucked?  Home of america's insurance industry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

crash it and you're even more fucked?  Home of america's insurance industry.

I've come out ahead on that. When I got hit by a recklesss driver, I sued. You always have to sue. That's part of the deal. But in the end I got my fucking car paid for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Don't buy a used car in CT. Ever. Waste of money. You drive it 60 miles and you are fucked.

Can you elaborate? I'm not following the argument here and, who knows, one day I might be shopping for a used car....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anomaly2 said:

Can you elaborate? I'm not following the argument here and, who knows, one day I might be shopping for a used car....

The emissions rules are stringent. Every car that gets  a yellow light glowing on the dash has a problem. You take it to your mechanic and he resets it. Then you sell the car. The new buyer sees no problem. Buys the car. Then the light comes on. You go for emissions and it fails of course. But to fix it, you have to spend a bunch of cash. You can get a waiver---but only if you spend at least the minimum (about 900 bucks keeps going up) but have to bona fide--so you may have to spend say 1500 bucks first. So you basically destroy the economy of buying a used car. The downside is too great. Just not worth it. Waiver good for 1 year only. Actual repair worth two years.

Now you might be lucky and get away with the turn off trick. But you might not. In my case it was the canister that absorbs gasoline vapors. The reset didn't work.

I've replaced catalytics at least 3 times in 15 years, keeping these cars legal, and two of the canister thingies.

You buy a new ordinary car and you will have an ownership cost of well under 20 cents per mile for the captial expediture not including tires oil gas. And that will be good for 150k miles. You buy a car with 125 k for "cheap" and then you find yourself nickdiming to 30 cents per mile...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Thanks for the explanation Fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this