Wickard is one of the worst SCOTUS rulings to still be in effect and I'd love to see it overturned. (Of course this administation would not like that outcome.)
And on the topic of buildings, current examples of federal regulation do not instil confidence at all.
bsky.app/profile/rand...
And here is an actual example of a negative outcome of federalizing building regulation:
img2.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
I'm not saying the ICC is good but the federal bureaucracy is even slower. There's rulemakings that languish for years.
If we had cooperative federalism in the US (which we don't and likely never will, we have adversarial federalism), I'd be a little more receptive to federal involvement in codes.
Because the federal bureaucracy moves slow as molasses. (And I highly doubt an administration filled with xenophobia would be willing to embrace international standards or best practices. I know he's term-limited but he has plenty of sympathizers and wannabes.)
Here's an interesting court case from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. A city tried to violate MA's building code preemption, and the ruling focused on the problem of a patchwork of ordinances.
law.justia.com/cases/massac...
That has its own problems:
For instance... what if a state wants to allow single-stair beyond 4 stories, or EN/ISO-compliant elevators? A federally-mandated building code would hinder both of these, just like how EPA regulations already hinder modern refrigerants in heat pumps.
The EU doesn't have a single building code. (The "Eurocodes" are structural design standards, *not* a full building code.)
How would it be better? The federal bureaucracy moves slower than the ICC code process (ever had a look around www.reginfo.gov ?).
Why not state-developed codes instead? These would avoid the constitutional issues and avoid dragging this into the slow-as-molasses federal bureaucracy.
If agencies like OSHA are any indication, it would lead to outdated standards being locked in for many years, as you can see here in 29 CFR 1910.35.
And do we think a federally-mandated code would be receptive to best practices from abroad (especially under this administration or a similar one)?
There are also plenty of other arguments against a federally-mandated building code (also, what *isn't* interstate commerce?). I'd certainly support states (either alone or as part of a coalition) developing a performance-based building code that embraces international best practices.
A federally-mandated building code would violate the Tenth Amendment and is a bad can of worms. Every time you think about giving lots of power to a future Dem trifecta, imagine those same powers in the hands of MAGA. (Project 2025 calls for "legislative support for the single-family home".)
Why does the bill only call for model guidelines for local ordinances instead of statewide code amendments? Single-stair is a good thing, but letting each city opt in or out isn't the right way to do this.
Just a theory, but I think a possible reason why the ruling class is so addicted to fossil fuels is because fossil fuels can be used as a point of control (e.g. embargoes, sanctions, blockades) in ways that Mother Nature can't be (at least not yet).
If someone has both a "thin blue line" sticker and a "don't tread on me" sticker, they're really saying "I'm a hypocrite, rules for thee but not for me".
An administration that "transed" the Department of Defense into identifying as the Department of War clearly doesn't want diplomacy.
Exactly. The far-right wants a Christian theocracy.
The same should apply for the dealership lobby. (They're the one's who vigorously lobby for dealer franchise laws - imagine if the Apple Store was illegal and we had to go to CompUSA if we wanted to buy a Mac or iPhone. Dealerships also hate EVs because of less maintenance.)
This is a great reason why states should make themselves less dependent on federal funding.
And don't allow the network operators to customize the OS or interfere with updates either. (This is a major part of Android's fragmentation problem.)
That's perhaps the most ridiculous excuse I've ever seen. (As far as I'm aware, airports never closed their bathrooms, including in the non-secure public areas.)
That's going a bit too far because of the risk of abuse. (Trump and some of his pals have threatened to revoke the citizenship of sitting members of Congress.)
Anything that gives the federal government more power is something I'd be wary of.
This is an excellent reason why politicians should have to dress like racing drivers.
The unions also have plenty of their own tyranny (e.g. the elevator union's absurd ban on preassembly, and the NYC transit union's desire to ban one-person train operation despite that being very common around the world.)
A great example of AI breaking something that wasn't broke. (I've even had cases where I entered a statute number directly into the search box and Google's AI overview gave entirely wrong information. This along with environmental reasons is a good reason why I use udm14.com which removes the AI.)
This alone is an excellent reason why it's time for the California legislature to propose a ballot measure to amend the state constitution and abolish sheriffs.
@ttcdoors.bsky.social Looks like we have another jurisdiction that (at a much larger scale) requires platform barriers.
And especially when that "someone else" might be subject to surveillance laws like Section 702.
The ruling class simply does not care about how embargoes and sanctions harm ordinary innocent people. (or maybe the ruling class even gets gratified by seeing ordinary innocent people suffering. See also: Cuba.)
I just wonder how mad the GOP and other fossil fuel addicts will get in response to this.
Also, the military itself is the world's biggest polluter as an organization.