Obama Takes On Preemption of State Law

By TChris, Section Law Related
Posted on Wed May 20, 2009 at 09:38:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

And now for some good news:

The Obama White House on Wednesday undid a Bush administration policy that used federal health and safety regulations to limit the ability of injured consumers to sue companies in state courts.

This will irritate the Chamber of Commerce types who have no interest in "states' rights" when those rights include a consumer's right to sue businesses under state law. Business interests persuaded the Bush administration (and have often persuaded federal courts) that state law should be preempted by federal law to spare businesses the burden of complying with 50 different standards of liability. Of course, businesses aren't forced to do business in 50 different states, and it hardly seems unfair that they be subjected to the laws of those states in which they choose to do business.

[more ...]

In the past eight years, federal agencies pre-empted laws across a wide range of areas -- health, safety and environmental regulations as well as financial and consumer protections.
"We're saying no more of that approach," said Kenneth Baer, communications director at the White House Office of Management and Budget. "We're going back to making it clearer and more orderly and more defensible under the law."
In a memo to government department heads, Obama said that pre-emption of state law should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the states.

< Gitmo Detainee To Be Tried in Federal Criminal Court | Obama Considering Preventive Detention for Terrorists >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Takes On Preemption of State Law | 6 comments (6 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why would you believe... (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by Dadler on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:33:11 AM EST

...anything coming out of Obama's mouth right or that of his administration now? Chances are he'll do a 180 at some point very soon.

That's good. Let's see what (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Wed May 20, 2009 at 10:39:48 PM EST

happens when it is time to file the first brief.

: good point (none / 0) (#5)
by nolo on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:19:37 PM EST

I'm cautiously optimistic.

how to deal with hypocrisy (none / 0) (#3)
by BruceM on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:51:01 AM EST

The Republican-Christian party members are so revved up on "states' rights" they are talking about secession (though I think that is because they don't like the idea of a "nigger president" in control of them - if a white president were doing the same thigns - like when bush was doing the same things - they'd have no problem).

But now that Obama has done something that increases "states' rights" the Republican-Christians will whine about it and oppose it because it's not the type of state's rights they want (taking them at their word re: state's rights).

Obama simply does not know how to deal with two-faced hypocrites. It's very simple:

You take some action they won't like;
Show a clip of them saying something that support your action;
Predict what they'll say in opposition to your action and their previous statements.

This puts the hypocritical opposition in the position of either staying quiet or letting you say "I called it - I told you they'd say this, even though it directly conflicts with their previous statements on this issue. They're so predictable and such hypocrites."

That's how you deal with hypocrites. Why Obama is not showing clips at his press conferences of members of the Republicans-Christian party saying things Obama knows they will contradict just flabbergasts me. It's the only way you can deal with hypocrites.

You can let them be hypocrites and try to call them on their inconsistency after the fact, but that doesn't work very well, as they've already said it. Why let them talk when you can control what they say or make them shut up?

As Obama continues to disappoint me more and more with each passing day, I hope someone passes on this advice to him.

Can this be expanded (none / 0) (#4)
by ricosuave on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:20:18 PM EST

to include state usury laws? Can my state enforce interest rate caps on credit card and payday loan companies located in other states?

Not that they will...I live in Texas, and I don't see Rick Perry jumping on this one anytime soon...but maybe one of your states will do it?

All you Bush Haters are irrational (none / 0) (#6)
by diogenes on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:30:32 PM EST

Does it make any sense at all to have fifty state standards instead of one? Do you liberal types not realize that a single federal standard may be less stringent than that of half of the states but more stringent than the other half's. Does this mean that Texas can discard auto mileage rules in favor of it's own "state standard" on SUV's.