||| FROM BILL APPEL |||
Let’s posit that a lot of federal clear air and water legislation and/or enforcement is stifled by federal executive and/or legislative action over the next few years. What should the blue states do?
Background: the states and federal government share what is called concurrent jurisdiction over certain areas in clean air and water. When the federal government regulates in that area, as the senior political entity its laws and administrative activities are said to pre-empt state action rendering the state impotent in those areas to that extent.
However, where the federal government withdraws its powers of regulation, states, analyzing the resulting vacuum, could tailor laws, regulations and enforcement policies to fill that vacuum to the extent of their powers. State powers are not wholly congruent with federal powers in these areas, but in the absence of a federal presence, I think they could be very effective. They would also preserve federal expertise by transferring it to the states.
More to the point, I specifically propose that states promptly enact anticipatory legislation as standby powers to fill any vacuum created by any subsequent federal withdrawals from areas of concurrent environmental legislation, regulation or enforcement. This of itself may discourage federal withdrawal from these areas, and also preserve the skills of federal experts that would otherwise be displaced or lost.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Thanks Bill. I’m no lawyer but this sounds well worth pursuing.
I usually respect your opinion on legal issues but this time you completely missed the salient point.
Federal preemption trumps all ill-considered state legislation that conflicts with the constitutional administration of our republic.
Unfortunately, we as citizens have to deal with the results of fed.gov tolerating such idiocy for purely political objectives.
Why is CARB mandating what kind of vehicles we are “permitted” to drive and what kind of stove we are “permitted” to own to cook food for our families.
“Federal preemption trumps all ill-considered state legislation that conflicts with the constitutional administration of our republic.”
WTF does this even mean? Do you have any idea of what you’re even talking about?
What, pray tell, do you consider ill-considered in regards to legislation that protects the quality of the air we breath and the water we drink?
From what I read above, Bill is recommending legislation to fill vacuums that emerge when the Trump feds WITHDRAW from certain areas, not to oppose them. There’s a difference.
Nonsense. No thinking person advocates a withdrawal of federalism as it should be. think guardrails, not roadblocks.
We settled this in 1865 when a Republican president ended slavery.
My suggestion is, as Michael Riordan explained, only to fill a possible vacuum should the federal government withdraw from protecting the environment in areas, and they exist, where federal and state jurisdiction overlap.
The EPA was initiated by President Nixon. We have a very different Republican president coming in, one whose characteristics include unpredictability, but who has indicated hostility to a federal role in environmental protection.
Instead of injecting fear and loathing into our public discourse, consider moderating your comments to take into account that there has been a major shift in the electorate away from the complete and utter failure of the progressive agenda. Get out of the blue bubble, read today’s Wall Street Journal on the reality of the Dem implosion and maybe think about why you feel compelled to shutter and shame any conservative voice that contradicts your propaganda-driven worldview.
I will never forget how I was treated on this forum when I correctly predicted that masking was a useless fetish and that Sweden had adopted the most effective Covid policy that spared the healthy, protected the vulnerable, saved their children from educational disaster and protected their economy. All of which is a matter of record at this point. I felt like I was being pecked to death by a flock of angry ravens.
Kindness? C’mon, this is not what you do.
Can you hear me now?
I can’t hear you… nor anybody else who spews vitriol while extolling the likes of Rupert Murdoch, and somehow thinks that the democratic party has a progressive agenda. Are you kidding? Do you even know what a progressive is?
Up until late 2022 Sweden’s government was ran on a fairly socialist platform (and had been so since the early 1900’s). During the pandemic before the immunizations came out Sweden had by and large adopted the same approach that we did during Covid (masks, limited gatherings, social distancing, etc.,) with the exception of forced lockdowns, and their guidelines were not mandatory. Their numbers were not that much different than other nordic countries that had more sever restrictions, and unlike the U.S. which has a large population of psycho-extremists they have a public that was 90% willing to abide by the medical establishments guidelines.
Rupert Murdoch– are you kidding? The WSJ and FOX News give nothing but a “propaganda-driven worldview.”
“Fear and loathing” is pretty much what the “major shift in the electorate” now has to offer.
Get over it.
Scott Hallquist’s comments about Sweden are a bit misleading. Using the common metric of confirmed COVID-related deaths per million, Sweden fared better than some European countries (Spain, Portugal, and Italy), but worse than others (including Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Germany). So it’s a stretch to claim that Sweden had “the most effective Covid policy” when the data says otherwise. At best, Sweden did “OK,” largely because their affluent and educated populace, with a high degree of demographic unity and institutional trust, chose to voluntarily comply with “optional” public health guidelines.
Increasingly it seems that those who spread misinformation so casually are often the first to play the victim when it comes to “censorship.” Curiously these are also people who seem rather fixed in their beliefs, and rush to the comments to loudly denounce anything and everything as an affront to their “freedom.” They can’t quite figure out why people don’t want to talk to them or hear their opinions. Hang in there Scott, maybe you’ll figure this out eventually!
Ouch!
Thanks, “M.J” for not only taking the bait, but swallowing the hook, sinker and 20 feet of line in your remarks about “vitriol” which is still dripping from your chin. You illustrate perfectly the point I have tried to make about the sterile bot-like ideological conformity of the political monoculture of Orcas Island. You would probably be surprised at who agrees with me. They tend to be tradesmen, small business owners and good conservative citizens who do not want to lose business for not appearing to agree with their intellectual “betters” like you. So the Democratic Party is not progressive?
Tell me again about the platform of eliminating the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, adding 4 new senators from safe blue zones that are not “states” by any definition and eliminating the electoral college. Beat me harder, Daddy!
I intend to call Lin tomorrow to find out how I can post a video of me doing the Trump Victory Dance. I would like to see it on the masthead. Failing that, this will have to do: https://www.khon2.com/news/national/nfl-stars-celebrate-big-plays-with-dance-moves-inspired-by-trump/.
Satire aside, I sincerely wish all of you and our friends and neighbors on Orcas Island the best of good fortune in tomorrow’s hurricane-strength storm. Cliff Mass thinks it could be dangerous to persons and property. Forecast for Kauai here is a few showers, sunshine and gentle NE tradewinds.
“The most effective Covid policy” – Depends on how you define it.
If the definition is limited to managing the virus Sweden fell into the midrange in Europe.
If the definition comprehensively considers all impacts such as medical, societal, psychological, educational, economic, etc. then Sweden is at the top of the list. Johns Hopkins meta study study reflects our national experience and concluded that the United States should never again impose such restrictions
From my perspective the big picture is more important than the single issue approach, but I’m just trying to be inclusive of diverse interests to assure equitable outcomes.
“Johns Hopkins meta study study reflects our national experience and concluded that the United States should never again impose such restrictions.”
Unlike Sweden, if 50% of Americans showed any common sense there would not have been the need for such drastic measures. Can you imagine where we, as a small resort destination, would be if limits had not been imposed on tourist related businesses had every person out there that wanted to “get away from it all” had showed up here during the worst of the pandemic?
Keeping in mind the difference in the mentality & intellect of the average Swedish citizen and that of the average American IS looking at the big picture.
Getting back to the original article I appreciate your thoughts and efforts Bill, and I hope that you shared your thoughts with lawmakers elsewhere.
I have since learned that the same suggestion is on the Democratic Governors Association “to do” list, so it’s clear that I’m not the first to think of this. I hope our own Legislature and regulatory apparatus are alerted and prepared to fill the probably upcoming void..
And I take Scott’s final words seriously and wish him well: we’re all in this together. Stay warm, Scott; I remember when the temperature on Oahu got down to 70 degrees, people said it was cold!
Folks, you need to think of law in the United States as an upside-down triangle. Federal government makes a rule and the state and local government can not make it less restrictive, but can make it more restrictive (Pending specific jurisdiction, for example, international shipping channels)
For example, (and please be kind to me as I’m making up this information for my point and I can not recall the exact distance) the federal government could say for example that all boaters need to be 300 yards away from Southern Resident Killer Whales, Washington State could pass a law that requires 1000 yards and in theory, San Juan County could pass an Ordinance that requires 1200 yards of separation. (I’m not suggesting that SJC do this or don’t do this).
Also, for example, when the Federal Government and Washington State had not addressed advertising and access to vaping devices for minors under the age of 21, San Juan County, via the Board of Health, passed a law that prevented advertising to minors and age for purchase of 21 (Some of the details may be a bit off, but you get the point). At one point, when multiple counties had different anti vaping laws, the state stepped in and passed one law for the state, which nullified all existing regulations from a local government perspective. Similar thing happened with Drug take back programs and plastic bag bans.
So my point to all of this is to support what Bill has stated and to suggest, that if certain environmental requirements or protections are retracked then both the county and the state have the responsibility to fill the gaps. A great example of this is the Shoreline Master Plan that I helped pass. SJC passed a law that said Fin-Fish Net Pens are illegal in San Juan County. That is the law of the land until someone sues the County and the county could lose (Not very possible as this is a foundational part of the US and State constitution to grant local sovereignty to local government when the issue is not currently being addressed. The state could pass an RCW that allows Net Pens in all state waters, but until then it is the Law.
Thank you Bill for the observation. It is time now to stand up for what our community demands for the protection of our community and environment integrity.
I’d like to add a unique tweak to Rick’s historical example of my comment, the best example being the not-so-recent county prohibition of jet skis on waters within the county.
The constitutional seniority of federal law on navigable waters does not displace state or local authority to regulate what goes on upon or under those waters within that municipality. Article 11, section 11 of our state constitution, the highest state law applicable to our county, grants to local governments the power to “make and enforce all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws.”
But a word of caution: this power cannot be invoked by initiative, as the initiative backers of a somewhat more recent attempt to impose restrictions on boaters to protect whales discovered.
We have the tools, and using them wisely we can as Rick says, do much to protect our community and environmental integrity. For instance:
Resistance to environmental regulations is often based to strongly held (often individual) beliefs as to how “property” is defined. But that definition is malleable: property rights “… are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules of understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law … “Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 US 564, 93 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972). Those who think the differences are subtle should look at how states define water rights (in Colorado, the state owns rainwater before it hits anything), or the rights of married couples to real property. Today, the fact that it is now known that private property is part of a far larger natural system of vital public and environmental benefit bodes changes to what private property is.