This is dreaming of a new administration very prematurely. On day 1 it withdrew from a federal lawsuit to enforce voting rights on Texas, which enacted a blatantly racist law to engage in voter discrimination.
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work...
And as a result, the national policy is that voter discrimination is to be left up to the states. If Texas' own citizens decide to discriminate, it's their right, and not for the federal government to question it.
Systematic voter discrimination being left up to the states fairly clearly shows anti-competition will be left up to the states as well. I'd hardly call this a work of fiction, it's an emerging fact of the political landscape.
> This is dreaming of a new administration very prematurely. On day 1 it withdrew from a federal lawsuit to enforce voting rights on Texas, which enacted a blatantly racist law to engage in voter discrimination.
> https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work...
Did you link to the right document? This is a motion for a continuance, not a withdrawal.
> This is dreaming of a new administration very prematurely.
Thats strange, I hadn't actually attributed this reality to any particular administration.
> On day 1 it withdrew from a federal lawsuit to enforce voting rights on Texas
This has nothing to do with enforcing federal will through the interstate commerce clause, which is what my post was about.
All expansion of the federal government's power domestically, through the interstate commerce clause, is through case law, which is largely exempt from administrations.
>Thats strange, I hadn't actually attributed this reality to any particular administration.
That's strange, considering this administration is openly hostile to the environment, and ran on the traditional Republican platform of state's rights.
Voting rights, commerce, environment - these things being relegates to the states vs being reviewable by the federal government are related by how and whether the executive branch decides to act. That they have the legal power through case law doesn't mean they'll actually use it.
You can't fathom that I don't care about the present administration?
Is it so impossible that my opinion was formed sometime else throughout my life and would be accelerated and equally constitutional if I happened to get in power some day?
Typically one law gets passed for one reason, by administration A.
Administration F has no recollection of why Administration A passed the law, and simply sees it as a convenient "thing on the books" to use when someone is technically violating it. The person challenges it in court, and the court establishes the limitations or lack thereof of that. The people in the court and appeals court were most likely appointed during administrations B, C, D, and E.
Administration Z simply reacts to these tools available.
And as a result, the national policy is that voter discrimination is to be left up to the states. If Texas' own citizens decide to discriminate, it's their right, and not for the federal government to question it.
Systematic voter discrimination being left up to the states fairly clearly shows anti-competition will be left up to the states as well. I'd hardly call this a work of fiction, it's an emerging fact of the political landscape.