Right on the money! I have noticed a tendency on the Right to ignore "states' rights" when it comes to Blue states doing something they don't like. But that's a price we have to pay, if we want to live in a federal system ... where the benefits outweigh the costs.
There is another aspect as well. This may sound a bit cynical, but ... we want to give the Left as much rope as we can, in the states they control. Let them pass a law in California mandating that every Black resident be given five million dollars and a free house. Let them pass laws defunding ... hell, dis-arming ... the police. We want all sensible people to leave these states and flee to the Red States. Lenin never actually said, "The worse it is, the better it is," but he could have, and in such a situation as we are now ... rapidly approaching the end of the civilization built by our ancestors ... the more our side is geographically concentrated, the better. So the worse the Blue states become, the better it is for the people who believe in civilization. It's a fortunate coincidence that federalism is also is one of our civilized principles. Like the Quakers, we can do well by doing good.
I agree with your basic sentiment there - blue states need to have the freedom to, well, make themselves different enough from red states that people have a reason for moving from one to the other.
That said, I don't think that the pig law is going to come anywhere close to that standard. After all when our country was founded, pig pens were plenty big enough for the pigs to turn around, and civilization didn't collapse! If anything a farmer brought forward in time from 1776 (when animal cruelty laws did exist, BTW, as they have done since Puritan New England) would probably blame the California law for not going far enough.
If other states are bothered by what California has done, they're free to lobby Congress to pass a law under the (actual, not dormant) Commerce Clause to pre-empt California's law. But until then, I think it's the Court's job to uphold laws that aren't obviously unconstitutional, even if those laws are detrimental to some economic interests.
Think about if the roles were reversed: suppose that West Virginia or Wyoming or some other red state passes a law banning its employers (public and private alike) from imposing vaccine mandates on their employees. Then a bunch of liberals sue, saying that, by reducing the demand for vaccines, this law harms out-of-state pharmaceutical interests. Should a federal court re-instate the vaccine mandates? I think not. But if we are to apply this standard fairly we have got to let California regulate its pork market, too.
Right on the money! I have noticed a tendency on the Right to ignore "states' rights" when it comes to Blue states doing something they don't like. But that's a price we have to pay, if we want to live in a federal system ... where the benefits outweigh the costs.
There is another aspect as well. This may sound a bit cynical, but ... we want to give the Left as much rope as we can, in the states they control. Let them pass a law in California mandating that every Black resident be given five million dollars and a free house. Let them pass laws defunding ... hell, dis-arming ... the police. We want all sensible people to leave these states and flee to the Red States. Lenin never actually said, "The worse it is, the better it is," but he could have, and in such a situation as we are now ... rapidly approaching the end of the civilization built by our ancestors ... the more our side is geographically concentrated, the better. So the worse the Blue states become, the better it is for the people who believe in civilization. It's a fortunate coincidence that federalism is also is one of our civilized principles. Like the Quakers, we can do well by doing good.
Doug,
I agree with your basic sentiment there - blue states need to have the freedom to, well, make themselves different enough from red states that people have a reason for moving from one to the other.
That said, I don't think that the pig law is going to come anywhere close to that standard. After all when our country was founded, pig pens were plenty big enough for the pigs to turn around, and civilization didn't collapse! If anything a farmer brought forward in time from 1776 (when animal cruelty laws did exist, BTW, as they have done since Puritan New England) would probably blame the California law for not going far enough.
Congratulations
Got picked up by AT
Other states should have some redress of CA due to increased cost.
The price of pork will go up all over the country. Tx shouldn't be forced to pay more due a vote in CA.
CA has driven an increase in the cost of cars for the whole country.
If other states are bothered by what California has done, they're free to lobby Congress to pass a law under the (actual, not dormant) Commerce Clause to pre-empt California's law. But until then, I think it's the Court's job to uphold laws that aren't obviously unconstitutional, even if those laws are detrimental to some economic interests.
Think about if the roles were reversed: suppose that West Virginia or Wyoming or some other red state passes a law banning its employers (public and private alike) from imposing vaccine mandates on their employees. Then a bunch of liberals sue, saying that, by reducing the demand for vaccines, this law harms out-of-state pharmaceutical interests. Should a federal court re-instate the vaccine mandates? I think not. But if we are to apply this standard fairly we have got to let California regulate its pork market, too.
Yes it is a state rights issue.