Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (547)	6/8/2005 8:49:46 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541990

There's no reason why the state wouldn't be attentive to the endangered species I agree, and said is much if less directly later on in my post. I made my argument more general because it isn't about endangered species or disabled access but rather the proper role for each level of government. I said that there is no reason to assume that congress will be wiser than the state legislatures. Following that idea there is no reason why most issues have to be addressed at the national level in order to be addressed. The part about the rule of law comes in because even if the states wouldn't protect the species (and if you think its important to do so), or do other things that some feel should be done, it doesn't mean the feds legally gain the power to take over what the states do not do. and I can't get exercised over some strictly local establishments not providing access to the disabled if they can do so without incurring the wrath of their patrons I can't either but I was arguing the overriding principle rather than debating the merits of each supposedly required federal intervention. Tim