This May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a revision to the Clean Water Act that requires states to consider tribal treaty rights when crafting water quality regulations. The rule could protect resources such as wild rice, sturgeon, salmon and shellfish.
Probably, but not necessarily. My understanding is that the overturning of Chevron means that the courts don’t have to defer to agency expertise anymore, but until EPA’s regulatory power is completely taken away, they can still implement these kinds of rules. Someone would have to bring a case against this particular regulation and argue that harm was caused by it, and that case would have to go through the courts and make it to the Supremes. At that point the Nine Robed High Priests of the Imperious Court could decide that they know better than the experts and then squash the regulation. So it’s not automatically nullified by the overturning of Chevron, but with a bit of work it definitely helps.
“Michelle Cox was in disbelief when a U.S. Department of Labor official told her earlier this year she was violating federal law by employing 14- and 15-year-olds past 7 p.m. on school nights.
Cox, the owner of a Subway franchise in Maquoketa, Iowa, knew the state legislature had made substantial changes to state labor laws in 2023 to allow younger teens to work later on weekdays.”
“She thinks the federal government is unfairly targeting Iowa, which she says was only trying to support small businesses”
Since when was subway a “small business”?
The whole point of the labour law is to get kids back home on time to where they can actively participate in school. There are plenty of parents out there who will force their kids to work as much as possible as soon as they can, and it is awful for their education.
The only people who have the audacity to claim this isn’t harmful to children are people who’ve never had to go to school and hold down a full time job. Fuck that lady, I hope the Fed takes all her shitty sandwiche money.
It’s a franchise. Subway owns the name and sets the menu/standards, then pays franchisees to start and run locations in exchange for a (huge) cut of the profits.
The way I see it, just because it is lawful doesn’t mean it’s right. That’s what you get for hiring children.
US is more than okay with environmental laws, voting, education, driving laws, auto/medical insurances, work pay/rights, cannabis reform, etcetera to be a state’s rights issue
what makes something a state’s rights issue versus a federal one?
It is very clear legally speaking. There is a clause specifically to address this issue in the constitution called the supremacy clause. The way that it works is that if there is a federal law that specifies something then it takes priority over state laws. Some of the things that you mentioned would fall into both federal and state categories like education where states have some control but must also abide by federal regulations.
The only exception to this rule is cannabis and the only reason that it has worked this way is because cannabis reform is so widely popular across the US that if the federal government were to withhold funding or otherwise punish states for making and enforcing laws that go against the supremacy clause it would not go over well for the politicians that make that decision. They know that federal cannabis regulations truly are outdated and not in touch with our modern society. That being said, supremacy clause is still in effect and the federal cannabis laws are still absolutely enforceable even in states where cannabis is “legal”. The federal government simply chooses not to enforce those laws there most of the time.
Child labor laws absolutely do not fall into that same category as the vast majority of people don’t believe that child labor laws are outdated. The waters are not muddy on this issue at all.
Tldr if it’s in the constitution that the feds can do it, feds get to do it. If not states rights.
There also a few clauses like the interstate commerce clause which got reinterpreted when FDR had appointed most of the justices to have expansive definitions giving the feds more authority.
edit: The comment above shouldn’t be downvoted. Yes, many of the items they list are not under control of the state or are only under partial control. But, they asked a good question. To me the question is worth a hundred misunderstandings of fact. This person will certainly clean up their facts if they understand how the system was designed to work and why it’s broken. I upvoted them. You should, too.
what makes something a state’s rights issue versus a federal one?
The supremecy clause in the federal constitution prevents a state from passing a law contrary to federal law. There’s three situations:
1.) The federal law can explicitly allow a behavior. A state cannot pass a law to prevent it.
2.) The federal law can explicitly prevent a behavior. A state cannot pass a law that allows it.
3.) There’s no federal law. States can pass laws as they see fit.
Similarly, states have consitutional supremecy clauses to limit their city and county laws. When a state passes a law then what was once for cities and counties to decide is now under control of the state. When the federal passes a law what was once a state decision is now federal. States and federal will almost never repeal a law to allow the smaller subordinate to again decide. Thus, over time, power is consolidated to the state and federal.
Note that while the deconsolidation of power is very much a leftist issue, the semantic “states’ rights” has been adopted by the radical right. It was a slogan of the Confederacy. The argument they made was IMO wise and sound. But, they were leveraging reason for the immoral goal of continuation of slavery. You’ve not been misunderstood. But, it could easily happen if your audience has slightly less reading comprehension than is usually found on Lemmy.
Man it’s almost like it’d make sense to just have one national board that did this versus a massive host of state led initiatives of various but often bad quality…
stateline.org
Active