"Hang on, what is this, the interwar period? Have I time travelled back to the 20's/30's and isolationism? Don't get me wrong, when I was a Brit I wasn't a big fan of Brussels telling me how straight my cucumber had to be etc. but isolationism was arguable one of the causes of the 2nd world war, do we really want to go there again?"
My statement is suggesting that state rights trumps federal interference as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. During the Bush presidency, California sued the EPA for not allowing the state to set its own auto emissions standards. This case isn't about moral high ground in enforcing more stringent emissions regulations, but a question of state rights. Conveniently, since the EPA recently granted California the rights to set emissions standards until 2012, all 16 states in the lawsuit forgets it was a state right.
Fast forward to yesterday and the EPA's announcement that greenhouse gases are harmful and they have the authority to regulate it. The EPA shouldn't have the final authority in economic matters. There's no checks and balances. It's a government monster that used to provide for the public good that has now run amuck.
Add states that talk about secession, one civil war about state rights, and one war for independence; which will explain why there's a strong resentment - felt by a section of the population - over domestic, state issues being influenced internationally that have no right to be done so. Well, there's a war or two in the Middle East, but who says history is without irony.
You could have isolationism the other way around. Suppose the climate change bill increases manufacturing costs at home, and companies decide to offshore jobs. There's the possibility of more trade tariffs being imposed. It has already happened with Chinese tires.
lease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
