|
Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!
You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!
Maps and Figures "Hitler or Coulter?" QuizMap1 - Teen Pregnancy Map2 - Incarceration Map3 - Homicide Rates Map4 - Drop-out Rates Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates Map6 - Driving Distances Map7 - Energy Use Map8 - Gonorrhea! Map9 - Tax Burden Map10 - State GDP Map11 - DHS funding Map12 - Adult Illiteracy. Map13 - Abortion Bans: Map14 - ER Quality Map15 - Hospital Quality Map16 - Coal Burners Map 17 - Infant Mortality Map 18 - Toxic Waste Map 19 - Obesity Map 20 - Poverty Map 21 - Occupational safety Map 22 - Traffic deaths Map 23 - Divorce Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work Give Up Shopping guide  
link to xml feed
|
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
DATA act
Hey Buck,what do you think of this new house bill, the Data Accountability and Trust Act?
Is this actually going to stick it to the direct marketers and credit-reporting agencies? Or is it yet another federal bill designed to render good state legislation toothless (like the new fuel efficiency bill that targets California's emissions program)? By the way, should we even believe this NYT editorial on the new fuel efficiency bill that says that, "only the federal government has the authority to set fuel efficiency standards and that any state program that has the effect of changing these standards is illegal." Wouldn't such a measure be blatantly unenforceable and unconstitutional? Hasn't California essentially been increasing fuel efficiency through their extremely high inspection standards already? I don't know, it seems like a foolish thing to try to force because the right wingers on the courts might just back the states' rights against the Bushies and for our Californian friends. |
3 Comments:
It's decent. It's biggest problem is preemption of state law.
12:17 PM, April 04, 2006
I thought that federal preemption was always allowed, as long as the subjects of the laws were the same. The problem is when we are changing what actions are covered under which law (i.e. Medical marijuana growth in CA is held under the interstate commerce law). As long as the laws expressly cover teh same subject, then federal law takes precedence.
So no, the measure in the editorial is not unconstitutional, as it is expressly permitted under the supremacy clause.
2:10 PM, April 04, 2006
So to give a point to the above comment, I worry whether this legislation may be a preemptive move to take away some of Spitzer's steam. The preemptive clause has been used before to render some lawsuits null.
2:14 PM, April 04, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home