Comments on: Is Another Clause in the Constitution Dead? http://www.kipesquire.net/2005/08/is-another-clause-in-the-constitution-dead/ A Stitch in Time Saves Nine ... But Haste Makes Waste Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:23:54 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Craig http://www.kipesquire.net/2005/08/is-another-clause-in-the-constitution-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-697 Craig Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:33:18 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=1454#comment-697 Dolphin is right. Should Congress have to step in and approve every time two states agree to (just to use a "conservative" as opposed to "liberal" example) reciprocity agreements for licenses to carry a concealed firearm or an agreement that either state's valid fishing license can be used on waters bordering two states even if a person with State A's license happens to accidently fish in State B's territory? There are tons of agreements between states that are of such minor significance (i.e. do not impose on or impede federal authority over commerce, international relations, etc) they should not be understood to reach the threshold of the clause. Dolphin is right. Should Congress have to step in and approve every time two states agree to (just to use a "conservative" as opposed to "liberal" example) reciprocity agreements for licenses to carry a concealed firearm or an agreement that either state's valid fishing license can be used on waters bordering two states even if a person with State A's license happens to accidently fish in State B's territory? There are tons of agreements between states that are of such minor significance (i.e. do not impose on or impede federal authority over commerce, international relations, etc) they should not be understood to reach the threshold of the clause.

]]> By: dolphin http://www.kipesquire.net/2005/08/is-another-clause-in-the-constitution-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-696 dolphin Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=1454#comment-696 I think interprettng that clause to apply to ANY agreement between states is enough to bring the federal government to it's knees. <BR /> <BR />Can you imagine Congress having to stop what it's doing and offer approval any time any two states what to do the slightest thing that affects the other? I think interprettng that clause to apply to ANY agreement between states is enough to bring the federal government to it's knees.

Can you imagine Congress having to stop what it's doing and offer approval any time any two states what to do the slightest thing that affects the other?

]]> By: KipEsquire http://www.kipesquire.net/2005/08/is-another-clause-in-the-constitution-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-695 KipEsquire Fri, 26 Aug 2005 04:40:06 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=1454#comment-695 I'm not sure that's entirely dispositive -- the federal government authorizing more stringent standards above and beyond the federal requirements is not the same as expressly authorizing interstate compacts. <br /> <br /> One way or the other, I find it depressing that these questions aren't being asked more often. I'm not sure that's entirely dispositive — the federal government authorizing more stringent standards above and beyond the federal requirements is not the same as expressly authorizing interstate compacts.

One way or the other, I find it depressing that these questions aren't being asked more often.

]]> By: Craig http://www.kipesquire.net/2005/08/is-another-clause-in-the-constitution-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-694 Craig Fri, 26 Aug 2005 03:01:29 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=1454#comment-694 Congress has authorized it, so it is perfectly legal. Under the law, states can choose federal standards set by the EPA or more stringent standards so long as they are atleast as protective as the federal standards and are approved by the EPA administrator. See 42 U.S.C. §7543(b)(1). And states that choose to do this are encouraged to set their standards the same as neighboring states to ease the burden on auto manufacturers. I believe the standards recently approved by Washington State are in line with California's and only go into effect if Oregon also adopts them. The Northeast states it appears are doing something similar. <br /> <br /> This ain't like Texas wanting to become part of OPEC. :-) Congress has authorized it, so it is perfectly legal. Under the law, states can choose federal standards set by the EPA or more stringent standards so long as they are atleast as protective as the federal standards and are approved by the EPA administrator. See 42 U.S.C. §7543(b)(1). And states that choose to do this are encouraged to set their standards the same as neighboring states to ease the burden on auto manufacturers. I believe the standards recently approved by Washington State are in line with California's and only go into effect if Oregon also adopts them. The Northeast states it appears are doing something similar.

This ain't like Texas wanting to become part of OPEC. :-)

]]>