Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

States Losing Ability to Protect Public Due to Federal Preemptions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:06 PM
Original message
States Losing Ability to Protect Public Due to Federal Preemptions
Look what the *states' rights advocates* are doing.



States Losing Ability to Protect Public Due to Federal Preemptions

6/13/2006


From OMB Watch:


Despite the party's repeated use in recent years of states' rights rhetoric, the GOP-dominated Congress and Bush White House have been assiduously working to eliminate the ability of state governments to protect the public.

Preemption Through Congressional Act

A new compilation of congressional activity reveals that Congress has voted 57 times to preempt state law and regulations in the last five years, including preventing states from instituting health, safety, and environmental standards.

According to a report released June 6 by House Government Reform Committee ranking member Henry Waxman (D-CA), those votes have resulted in 27 laws overriding state laws and regulations, including 39 preemption provisions.

Many of those preemptions gut state standards for consumer protection, such as safeguards against food contamination, as well as environmental, health, and safety standards. The enacted preemptions also take power away from state courts and limit state choices in deciding social policies.

In perhaps the most famous example of preemption in the past year, both Congress and the Bush administration stepped into the dispute over the end of life decision for the family of Terry Schiavo. Despite the state court repeatedly upholding Mr. Schiavo's decision to remove the feeding tube for his wife who had been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990, Congress passed Pub. L. 109-3, bringing the family dispute to federal court "notwithstanding any prior state court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings."

snip

Preemptions passed by Congress include the following:

* Preemption of drug liability laws Cases against drug manufacturers for injuries are generally brought to court at the state level. The 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 109-148), however, severely limits the ability of claimants to sue for injuries caused by drugs or vaccines considered to be "countermeasures" against a flu or epidemic, as decided by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

* Preemption of Firearms Trace System The 2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 109-108) limits state use of the Firearms Trace system, a database used by law enforcement officers to identify guns routinely used in violent crime or disproportionately associated with accidents. The provision bars state and local law enforcement agencies from using the database to track gun use for anything other than a criminal investigation.

* Preemption of laws limiting SPAM The 2003 CAN SPAM Act overrides laws in 38 states that protect against unsolicited email messages. The federal law is much weaker than many of the state standards that require consumers to affirmatively "opt-in" before receiving commercial messages.

* Preemption of vicarious liability laws The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. No. 109-59) overrides state laws that hold the owner of a vehicle liable for an accident when the car is driven by a renter or a lessee. In states with high tourism and high car rentals, it is often required that the owner of the vehicle be held liable in order to protect accident victims in cases in which the vehicle is insured but the actual driver is not. At the time the law was enacted, sixteen states had such laws.

* Preemption of open government laws The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the biggest government reshuffling since 1947. The law also contained a section entitled Critical Infrastructure Information (CII), intended to create incentives for companies to "voluntarily" submit information about the vulnerabilities of "critical infrastructure." To accomplish this result, the law preempts state and local disclosure laws and creates an overly restrictive information program that will provide corporations secrecy and immunity, and prevent state government action to protect the public.

* Preemption of environmental law Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-58) scraps state and local government's authority over environmental and land use policy. For example, the act limits the extent to which states can require cleaner burning fuels in automobiles. The bill also takes the authority to approve the siting of transmission lines out of the hands of state and local government.

snip

Preemption Through Regulation

Not only is state authority being threatened by congressional action, but the White House has also limited the role of the states through regulation and executive decisions. Perhaps the most troubling trend in regulatory preemption is being called "stealth tort reform"--the decision to preempt the ability of state courts to hear tort suits arising from cases covered by the federal regulation. U.S. PIRG has been documenting many such cases.

snip




(Additional information included here, under the intent of fair use for educational purposes.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. They only believe in States Rights when it steps on people.
When it supports prejudice and discrimination then States Rights is a wonderful thing. But when it actually helps people then States have no rights.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Bush v. Gore in December, 2000 was the flagship of federal preemption.
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 01:29 PM by seafan
When a partisan Supreme Court stopped the State of Florida from counting all of our votes, we started down a road into the abyss.

And this darkness is overtaking us.


Sandra Day O'Connor, you will have much to answer for after this life. Don't worry, you won't be lonesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. If I couldn't laugh I'd be crying right now. How do we 'move on' from
institutionalized fascism ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. This is how the FTC dismantled CA's privacy bill by Jackie Speier
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 01:33 PM by EVDebs
The feds preempt state rules with their own lax ones and allow banks/financial institutions to play with your private information, sending it around the world so they can charge you more while paying Indian employees less (and lay off the US employees to boot).

California privacy law overruled
Congress passes less strict version, the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Thursday, November 6, 2003

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/06/MNGS82R7191.DTL

BTW, the Russian mafia and other entities overseas, have been extorting monies from these financial institutions by threatening to release the data...they collect the extorted money and release it anyway it seems.

ChoicePoint, Citigroup, BofA, all have been in the news recently (look 'em up) for these security gaffes. Yet the public pays higher rates for worse service. Lovely, huh ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Warning: Slightly off topic
And not only are all the above comments sickeningly true, but
the game rules that Enron played by are not utilized by a host of
other companies - stock option preferences for certain groups
of buyers but not others, etc.

There are a myriad of unethical economic tactics the banks and
large companies now use to allow increase of profits to drive
up stock prices, and then allow a sell-out to only certain stock
holders.

And as long as the companies involved are not named "Enron" they
can do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. in first sentence above
I meant to say "now" utilized" not "not" utilized
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC