[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by mg1942

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 don't know, maybe because it explicitly says that it only applies to state agencies?

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.

So then why are you continuing here?

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.

Except the law in question explictily says it only applies to state agencies and doesn't ban anything. It's a bill that requires the state environmental agencies to get approval from the state legislature before enacting new regulations. While it effectivly overturns the new regulations approved last year, it doesn't ban them. The state environmental agency can still get those regulations enacted if they convince the state legislature to approve them. It takes the decision away from the governor's office and puts it in the hands of the legislature. If there's a power play here it's between executive and legislative power, not state and federal power.

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. Mind you, abuse of this over the last 60+ years has become the norm and somewhat accepted... but it does not make it right.

Except that it does involve interstate commerce. Unless you think all the building materials orginate locally? Also if it's accepted and has become the norm, why is it an issue now? Could it be because the neo-cons were kicked out and now can only do their damage at the state and local level?

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...)

A large amount of power is sold across state lines, which by definition and your own account is interstate commerce. Further, national regulations on commerce which apply to all the states also counts as interstate commerce. The federal government can't tell Arizona specificly that they need to abide by whatever regulations but they can tell all the states collectively that they do.

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

Maybe you did, but the vast majority of politicians and pundits who are raising the issue about states rights now are only doing so because they don't like the direction the federal government is going, despite that their favored policies have brought nothing but failure that the liberals are now trying to undo, with varying degrees of success.

Fixed.

No, it was right the first time. That thing with all those "scientists opposed to climate change" that was mentioned? It turns out a lot of them aren't against climate change, might have issues with it's effects on something specific or how quickly it's occuring, in a completely unrelated field and not really any more qualified to judge the issue than you or I, or are not scientists at all. The only debate left is how bad and how fast. That climate change exists and is a result of human activity isn't very contested.