But liberals won’t be happy about this because it prevents the states from regulating nuclear power. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/science/earth/vermont-cant-shut-down-nuclear-plant-judge-rules.html?_r=1&hp&gwh=CDA70C1727850E6E7460827440BBCD15
I’m glad that the judge saved Vermont from shooting themselves in the foot (it provides 70% of Vermont’s electricity)
I’ve a slight personal bias in that I’d be okay with Vermont buying more electricity from my home province of Quebec, but since I’m pro-nuclear I’m okay with the decision.
Here’s another defeat for states’ rights: Federal law trumps California state law when it comes to marijuana
Do you hear that? It’s the sound of deafening silence from conservatives who get all in a snit about states’ rights when it has to do with issues they care about. Usually it’s guns, but sometimes it’s nuclear power. But when it comes to pot of course, the state can go pound sand.
And incidentally, I’m probably what the OP would call a liberal and I’m very much in favor of nuclear power. But I won’t pretend this is purely about states’ rights just because it suits me.
As a liberal, I’m okay with this decision.
Actually, I’m in favor of states’ rights except where trumped by the Constitution. There’s nothing inconsistent about being in favor of gun rights in all states as that matter is covered by the 2nd Amendment, but also being in favor of states deciding on their own about same-sex marriage, nuclear power, drug policy and the like.
Now, were any of those to be covered explicitly by the Constitution I’d be in favor of whatever those dictates were. If SCOTUS decided that SSM was covered by the 14th Amendment I’d back that on that basis (I back it anyway, but I have no explicit legal backing for it, I just think it would be the right thing to do).
Anyway, I see no problem with backing states’ rights as long as one is consistent about it. Very “libertarian” of me, I guess.
I don’t know which conservatives you expect to speak up. This one is very much against the war on drugs in general and federal war on drugs in particular, and considers federal prohibition of marijuana in the face of state decisions to legalize it unconstitutional.
I like nuclear power. More chances of radioactive super mutants that way
I will say that, besides being also a liberal in favor of nuclear power myself, many conservatives forget that it would be impossible to get the typical opposition levels of 70% or higher for nuclear projects or proper disposal sites if all people included in those opposition numbers were liberals. You point me at any state and it would be unlikely that all included in the opposition to nuclear power were just liberals or environmentalists. (Typically, liberals make just a little bit more than a quarter of the population)
So no, this is not just a purely liberal idea, as the actual levels of liberalism would tell one. Assign this one to ignorance and our old friend NIMBY that includes also a good chunk of conservatives.
Might be interesting to start a poll thread and invite the board’s conservatives: “Which of these issues, if any, would you support a Federal Ban on?” Throw in state intervention on nuclear matters, drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, etc. We’ll see if the gist is “If it’s wrong in my opinion, I don’t care who bans it as long as it gets banned, and if it’s right in my opinion, nobody should ban it.”
The States have the right to do anything the Federal governmnet allows. Any other system would result in chaos, as it did once before.
When was the last victory for states’ rights?
So the reasoning behind the ruling is that only the federal government can regulate nuclear energy. Does anyone know why this is true of nuclear energy in particular? I was under the impression that environmental regulations could be enforced at both the federal and state levels.
Chickamauga?
Well for one thing, nuclear energy is treated specially by the Feds since you can use nuclear reactors to make nuclear weapons. They wouldn’t want some state to write loose regulations that would make it easy for someone to cart away fissionable material.
Actually, Libertarianism has nothing to do with federalism-- you can have a Libertarian society with strong state authority or weak state authority or no states at all.
Nope. The states have the right to do anything unless the Constitution disallows it. Big difference, at least in theory. In practice, there might not be as big a difference but your first statement is incorrect and your second statement is contrary to observed fact.
As for the OP, there isn’t enough info in the article for me to weigh in one way or the other. If the judgement hinges on the interstate commerce clause, then an appeal will probably be upheld by the SCOTUS. But let’s keep in mind that this is one judge’s ruling, and we know how that can change.
This isn’t a defeat for states’ rights. It’s an acknowledgment of the law as it has been for decades. Regulation of nuclear power has always been the sole preserve of the federal government.
The question is, what is the constitutional basis for this being so? And is there a difference if the states want tighter, as opposed to loser, regulations? As I said, the article in the OP isn’t any help in understanding that. I suspect commerce clause (what isn’t, these days), but I can’t be sure.
Federal preemption is a combination of a bunch of different constitutional provisions, though the most important is the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, §2). Of course, it can only apply in areas where the feds can legislate in the first place, such as commerce.
Express preemption is the easy part of the doctrine: in passing an otherwise valid federal law, Congress can announce its intent to preempt state law.
There’s also implied preemption. Conflict preemption is pretty obvious: a state law which conflicts with an otherwise valid federal law is preempted. So a California law requiring oranges to be stored in barrels is preempted by a federal law requiring oranges to be stored in plastic boxes. The part at issue here is “field preemption”, where courts determine that Congress has legislated exclusively in an area with the intent that states will not supplement its regulations. Courts don’t find field preemption that often; the only areas I can think of are railroads, nuclear power (actually, all nuclear activity) and labor law.
Great, now think about voting for someone who feels the same way!
Can you point me to a Democrat politician who introduced legislation that would stop federal criminalization of drugs?
They already decided SSM prohibitions do NOT violate the 14th AM.