Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:38 pmI’d allow insurance to sell across state borders freely, gambling and weed.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:02 pmYeah, but those powers have been delegated to the United States.HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:53 pmI sympathize with your desire for efficiency, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As the saying used to go - the trains ran on time.... More importantly it flies in the face of that pesky thing the Constitution - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:27 pm But back to "interstate implications"...my general argument is that we should do federally what doing so most efficiently and fairly achieves the public good versus individual state determinations that are otherwise creating inefficiencies and inequities. (not sure I've articulated that well, but hopefully clear).
That needn't mean that there aren't variations enacted at state levels, but when there is demonstrable benefit to common expectations and standards that people can rely upon when moving from state to state, that's beneficial...if that can't be demonstrated then probably should be up to the state.
You are saying you don't like that the interstate commerce clause is the foundation for that grant, yet, it's in the Constitution and has been repeatedly upheld as providing such grant.
And you seemed to suggest that there were situations in which that seems to you to be wholly inappropriate or wrong (if I understood you correctly).
So, I was just trying to figure out what decisions made through federal legislation you think should have been made at the state level instead.
I quite agree about "good intentions" but that's what democracy is all about. We try, with all good intentions (hopefully) to decide things that will work well...if they do not, we adjust. We get lots of swings at the ball.
But the question is whether such democratically made decisions should be at the federal level or whether they're better made at the state level.
I presented a construct that is a rational explanation for why the interstate implications should matter, I haven't heard your explanation for why state preferences should trump that logic...and some examples.
By contrast, I can give you plenty of examples of decisions made at a state level that you and I would agree were terrible and needed to be overturned one way or another by a federal authority, whether Congress or SCOTUS.
Insurance is one that is really, really stupid to have done at the state level. Adds huge inefficiencies.