[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

You didn't read the actual bill in question I linked to did you? It specificly says it only applies to state agencies established under titles 41 or 49. It doesn't make it illegal to enact new regulations either. It requires the state agency to file an economic impact statement with the legislature at least 3 months in advance and get legislative approval. Once again, it's an attempt to override state environmental regulations approved last year. It has no effect on anything done at the local or federal level, only the state level. The last paragraph of the article is irrelevent if the actual bill doesn't support what said article claims.





Even if that is true, it's not relevent to the bill here. Also I fail to see how adopting regulations for building codes and power generation doesn't apply to commerce. Hell, things like power generation didn't even exist when the constitution was written, so you need to stick them where they fit best. In this case under commerce, which the constitution once again expressly grants the federal government control over.

I read the bill you linked and fail to see how you are linking it to barring the state of Arizona from asserting state rights against the Cap and Trade legislation on the federal level. I am going to say this again, "The Arizona Bill only pertains to the state of Arizona." I agree with you that it only pertains to the state of Arizona and it's agencies. If you understood that then you can read on.

Now, if you understood the above, you might possibly grasp the concept that the people of Arizona might not like the fedzilla attempting to push a federal cap and trade style law on them based on the fact that they ban it at the state level from their own state agencies. Maybe just, they might take offense to it and file injunctions and appeals specifically citing their own laws and possibly even cite the 8th section of the Constitution and say that it is not an acceptable expansion of federal government to regulate their carbon dioxide output. That would be the push for state sovereignty that I was mentioning.

Now, you might not like to hear this, but the fedzilla pushing a code of building and energy efficiency on a building is far exceeding the powers granted the federal government in the Constitution. Regardless if a majority in the House or Senate approves it, anything that the states do that is not involved in interstate commerce is not available for regulation.

As for your argument over power generation, I will give you a perfect example. Most municipal utilities in the west generate their own power and distribute it on a local or state level. They do not engage in interstate commerce. So, if they are not engaging in interstate commerce, how can the fedzilla regulate their right to conduct commerce? The answer is simple, the fedzilla can not regulate their commerce as it is not interstate. Now if they are selling power across state lines, then the fed can regulate according to the Constitution ( and if this cap and trade bill does go into effect, I think we will see the end of power companies selling power across State lines...)

Also, let's be honest here. The whole state's rights thing is a red herring. Not many on the right had much of a problem when Bushy expanded the federal government's powers, because he was doing stuff they supported.

I had issues over things like Patriot Act. I for one do not approve of any wire tapping without obtaining a warrant first.

The problem here is "them dirty liberals" are in charge now and doing things that the neo-cons don't like, such as listening only to the scientists that support their policies and agendas when making environmental policy.

Fixed.