The End of States Rights

[Don Corleone]

Okay, maybe we're failing to communicate, and it sounds like I'm annoying you. So, in 50 words or less, please no 5 page explanations, how does the interstate commerce clause jibe with a limited federal government? If Congress can enact laws on anything involving interstate commerce, that's 95% of anybody's daily business. This new ruling gives them the last 5%.

I say that, because this ruling relates to a case that specifically does NOT involve interstate commerce. The Medicinal Marijuana laws were carefully written to avoid the Interstate Commerce Clause. And you say, too bad, State Governments are subservient to the Federal Government. Then, you take issue when I suggest that you support an expanded Federal Government. Well, which is it? Should Congress be limited to it's Constitutionally defined roles, or should it be free to do whatever it deems appropriate on the latest whim? In truth, if Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court were fulfilling the spirit of the 10th ammendment, and not just having the Supreme Court grant them new powers every year or two, wouldn't they restrict their laws and governances to those roles enumerated by the Constitution?

Finally, where in the whole document does it say that Congress is in charge of drug policy, or even enforcing morality for that matter? If Congress decided that it wanted to dictate that each and every citizen must keep the grass in their lawn cut to no lower than 2", no higher than 3", according to your logic, what would stop them?

I'm am shocked and amazed that Scalia voted with the majority on this one. I guess Thomas and Rehquist are the only two true conservatives left on the bench.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If Congress decided that it wanted to dictate that each and every citizen must keep the grass in their lawn cut to no lower than 2", no higher than 3", according to your logic, what would stop them?

I would guess nothing. Look at this law.

FRIDAY, June 4, 2004, 9:24 a.m.
Getting Government Out Of Our Bathrooms

As the federal government has grown larger and larger over the last several decades, its reach into the lives of everyday Americans has become more and more intrusive. There’s no better example of the current power of Big Brother than the Energy Policy Act of 1992. For those who may be unaware, this is the federal law which regulates the amount of water that you can use in your bathroom.

Prior to the early 1990s, the standard toilet in the United States used 3.5 gallons of water per flush. Effective January 1, 1994, federal law mandated that toilets manufactured in the United States could only use 1.6 gallons of water per flush. This is a nationwide standard that applies regardless of whether or not a water shortage exists in the particular area of the country that a person lives.

For homes built after 1990, the low flush toilet mandate is really not that much of an issue. In newer homes, sewer lines and drain systems are designed and built to accommodate the smaller amount of water available to transport waste. On the other hand, for owners of many older homes whose drain lines were built in reliance on 3.5 gallon toilets, the federal requirements have been a disaster.

Anyone who lives in an older home that has been retro-fitted with newer low flush toilets can testify that they are a source of never ending problems. Whether it’s the need to flush multiple times (thereby negating any water savings) or the need for repeated sewer line cleaning (because of insufficient water to carry the waste to the municipal system), low flush toilets are a plumbers’ dream and a homeowners nightmare. Nevertheless, in a capitulation to the environmental lobby, the government elected to thrust itself into our bathrooms. This is, of course, working out about as well as most federal government efforts to micro-manage our everyday lives do.

Unquestionably, toilets are the greatest water users in the home. At the same time however, the federal government does not tell people how many times they can shower in a given day or how many loads of laundry they can do in a particular week. If the federal government has the right to regulate the size of our toilets in the name of water conservation, will the next step be time clocks on our showers?

To the extent water usage by toilets is a problem, it is a problem best solved by operation of market forces as opposed to government regulation. As noted earlier, low flush toilets are more than adequate for most newer homes and some older ones. For homes where low flush toilets do the job, there is absolutely no reason for homeowners to pay the added costs associated with the extra water usage of the larger capacity toilets. On the other hand, for those who need more water and are willing to pay for it, there is no reason why the federal government should deny this option.

The ban on the United States manufacture of adequate capacity toilets has had a number of interesting side effects. Every weekend, people regularly scour yard sales looking for older toilets adequate to address their needs. Additionally, since full capacity toilets are still manufactured in Canada, a mini-black market is thriving as Americans look to our neighbors to the north to solve our bathroom woes. Just as Wisconsin residents used to make “oleo runs” to Illinois to avoid outdated government restrictions on margarine, a new class of smugglers has been created and forced by government policy to make “toilet runs” to Canada.

The flush toilet issue is just one of many examples of unwanted and unnecessary government intrusion into people’s lives. Current FDA regulations prohibit Americans from buying prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies even though an identical drug costs up to 60% more if purchased in the United States. If the market were allowed to work and Americans were allowed to buy drugs from Canada legally, drug prices in this country would necessarily decrease in response to the competition. Nevertheless, misguided government policy deprives the consumer of the right to choose where they’ll buy their drugs just like it deprives them of the right to choose what equipment they can use in their bathrooms.

Government policy on flush toilets and prescription drugs are classic examples of why the least government is frequently the best government. Bureaucrats in Washington are simply ill-suited to know what’s best for a senior citizen living in an 80 year old home in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. If that senior citizen wants cheaper prescription drugs in her medicine chest and a toilet that works, what gives the bureaucrat the right to say “no”?

There’s an old saying that goes: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. An updated version could well be: “Since cheaper prescription drugs and toilets that work have been outlawed, only outlaws have them”. Personally, I’m hoping I can convince a senior citizen to pick me up a couple of 3.5 gallon toilets when she goes to Canada to score her heart medication. I wonder if that’s how Al Capone got started?

Do any of you believe the founding fathers wanted the federal government regulating how much water we can use in our toilets?

Heres another take on it

Moreover, no one is able to estimate the cost of all federal, state and local regulations. Most state and local regulations were not even included in our study.

Even so, we conservatively estimated that government regulation now costs the country more than $1 trillion per year ($1,064 billion). Total federal, state and local spending is now more than $2.6 trillion ($2,658 billion), for a total government cost of $3.7 trillion ($3,722 billion). This total cost of government is oppressive, depriving the American people of economic freedom and control over their own lives. At a minimum, the government is cutting your income and prosperity in half. What the government does with that money does not seem to be nearly worth this enormous cost. So much of what the government does can in fact be done far better outside its system of taxes, spending and regulation. For example, workers today can get a far better deal out of personal savings, investment and insurance accounts than through Social Security, a huge component of the federal government in itself. Such personal savings and insurance accounts also are the best solution for the collapsing Medicare program. Private sector employment is still far better for the poor than our still huge welfare system.

LINK

[Don Corleone]

Preach on brother Gawain.