The original 1st article (which didn't pass) of the Bill Of Rights stipulated that congressional representation not exceed 50,000 per representative. At our current population, that would equal 6100 Representatives. Still unworkable IMO.

I guess it didn't pass for a reason then.

Environmental protections are generally an issue with the traditional partisans switch sides on whether "states rights" is an important concept.

I'm ambivalent about allowing states to create their own fuel economy standards.

I definitely think that the CAFE standards should be significantly increased and Washington should stop letting the manufacturers weasel their way out the increases that are coming.

But I don't know that I agree with allowing state standards to rule.

Isn't the idea that huge states like CA will pass very high CAFE standards which will, in effect, raise standards across the country? It makes more sense financially for car companies to make all of their cars meet the toughest standards rather than to make several different versions of their cars to meet several different CAFE standards.

Yes, that is the idea for people who like the strategy.

I just don't think it is a good idea to allow single states to start creating national policy. Especially when you getting into a realm where states start conflicting (say California requires that by 2018 more than 50% of cars are solar powered while Florida requires that by 2018 more than 50% of cars run on babies).

I'm just not sure really where I draw the line.

Puppies and kitties. The line is drawn at puppies and kitties.

It kinda seems like the only way to truly tighten standards, IMO. The US Congress has been paralyzed for decades from making tough decisions largely due to the influence of auto industry lobbyists.

Speaking of, I really hope that any further money doled out to the banks/financial companies and the money going to the auto industry forces them severely restrict their tens of millions of dollars spent on lobbying each year. BoA and Citigroup alone spent $11,400,000 on lobbying in 2007 and $8,750,000 in 2008.

It might be, but it is an idea that can cut both ways. Simply by requiring different labeling or production forms states could keep certain drugs out of their states or, if it would be enough trouble, out of the country.

"To better protect the children of our state from accidentally taking drugs that can cause severe hormonal fluctuations, all birth control pills sold in this state must be at least 1/4" in diameter, green in color, embossed with the poison-guy face, and imprinted with a code that identifies every person who saw the pill from initial manufacture through bottling. This law is in no way designed to limit a woman access to birth control. In fact, we so strongly believe in birth control that so long as these requirements are met we removed prescription requirements."

Well yes, if you agree that CAFE is the top of a very slippery slope. And while I realize your bc scenario is an extreme example, CAFE does require minimum standards to be met (overseen by the NHTSA) but it does not specifically require uniformity amongst states (i.e. higher standards are not prohibited).

Drug regulation and standards on the other hand are, by law, solely the purview the FDA and requires prescription drugs to be uniform. Drugs are also required by law to have a uniform look (or looks) and changing anything would require an additional round of application and proof that the new "version" of the drug met the same standards as the old. I believe it also requires the states to sell any/all drugs that have been approved for sale by the FDA.

Limbaugh: Obama is 'frightened of me'