But do you have specific cases in mind that illustrates
your point?
It is my understanding that the current court has struck down or come close
to striking down several environmental laws. One of the op ed writers for the
NY Times (Paul Kruger?) has written extensively about this.
Now if you are talking about states rights in general can you say
why it's bad for states to have rights?
I would look at the problem this way. The federal government exists to handle
issues that go beyond the boundries of individual states. The feds deal with
foreign governments. it seems to me that they should deal with environmental
issues that by their very nature cannot be dealt with by individual states.
This court seems to be moving towards a position that restricts the fed
responsibility in this manner.
As I remember it there is also concern that a Bush coutt would strike down
campaign finance laws agreeing with the Republican Senate position that free
speech requires that there be few if any limits on campaign finance
expenditures. I know this is a complex issue and it is hard to get it
"right", that is, balance individual freedom with appropriate controls on
what an individual or group can spend. But I would like to see us make the
effort.
I see overturning Roe vs. Wade as a good thing.
Why?
As a slightly different turn, if states rights laws are so poor, why
hasn't a death row inmate sued the government to be moved to a different
state, one that doesn't have the death penalty?
I am not saying that state's writes law are by nature poor. but you bring up
a good point. shouldn't there be a national standard on something so
important as state sponsored killing? Shouldn't there at least be standards
that have to met by all states (like having your lawyer stay awake) before
you are allowed to take someone's life?
Kevin Tarr
Sorry for the tangents.
Life is tangents
>>
