The fact that each of the states have different regulations isn't a problem for interstate commerce. It's only a problem if those regulations bollox up free trade between those states. If market forces can adequately address the problem -- and I believe they can -- then there is no need for the federal government to act. (I believe "staying you hand" is a very, very important element of governing from all three branches of government.)
I'm wary of a new federal regulation because there's always a tint of crony capitalism behind it. Feinstein isn't trying to protect AZ's egg layers. She's trying to protect CA egg layers, and will surely try to raise the standards to levels that will force out small farmers in AZ and other states. Not sayin' that's the case here, but it's something I'd look into before buying off on the legislation. On May 25, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > The conceit that states should be able to separately regulate so many things > that cross state lines: marriage, gun ownership, CCW, etc, often in > completely OPPOSITE directions (and ignoring the "full faith and credit > clause" in the Constitution > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution>) > makes it a rather schizophrenic way of doing things. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
