Time for a new subject

[Stephen Bragaw]

Sandy--

The federal government has this power through the ability to regulate commerce.
 As the manuscript undoubtedly pointed out, standardization of time in the 19th
century was a result of the need to have trains run on efficient schedules.
Just as finding the "right" hour was a product of the need to determine
longitude, needing to know the right time to the minute was a function of
smoothing the needs of interstate transportation and commerce.

A much better question in this vein will be whether the NF types try to bring a
challenge to SD v. Dole.

Regards,

A New Federalism "Buff"

PS--<tongue in cheek>If support of federalism renders me pejoratively as a
"buff", does that mean your support of the first amendment can be labeled a
"fetish"? (the same goes for the minion/lackey dichotomy in the latter post)




Quoting Sanford Levinson <SLevinson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU>:

> I hope that Marty knows my answer to his question.  It is, of course, the
> first.  I have not changed my views on Printz, nor, even more obviously, do
> I view the federal government as generally (or even frequently)
> "authoritarian" (in any pejorative sense, though it obviously relies on its
> authority every time, say, the Supremacy Clause is invoked and pre-emption
> is found to exist).
>
> For Printz and other "new federalism" buffs:  I have just read a
> fascinating manuscript about the history of "standard" time.  Do you (i.e.,
> "P-a-o-n-f-b") believe that the federal government has the power to require
> states to adopt standard time (let alone daylight time).  I.e., if Indiana
> declared that all of its public agencies (including public airports) would
> run on "God's time" (i.e., solar time), with suitable variations among
> cities), would Congress have the power to force them into "standard"
> time?  Or would it be enough to condition airport aid on an "agreement" to
> adopt standard time?
>
> sandy
>
>    It isAt 03:22 PM 10/30/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >OK, Sandy, do you "applaud the Ninth Circuit and the coalition of 'left'
> >and 'right' in behalf of liberty" because you think the panel was correct
> >on the First Amendment question (or because you agree with Kozinski that
> >it's a Printz violation?!), or "simply" because you view the federal
> >policy as "authoritarian," and it's always a good thing for courts to
> >invalidate "authoritarian" government conduct?  :)
> >
> >Marty L. (in my personal capacity; full disclosure: I've worked on the
> case)
> >
> >Sandy writes:
> >
> >I am curious about the response of our list to the Ninth Circuit decision
> >   yesterday striking down the Feds' attempt to lift the license of a
> doctor
> >   who recommended marijuana for medical reasons.  Betty Fletcher and Alex
> >   Kozinski were two of the three judges; there was no dissent.  In this
> >   morning's New York Times, Eugene offers a favorable review of the
> decision
> >   (as against Vik Amar, who found it "too sweeping).  I know that I find
> the
> >   Federal claim "authoritarian," and I have my suspicions that Eugene
> might
> >   even be willing to agree, with regard to this specific example.  (Of
> >   course, a paradox is that there are at least four "authority systems"
> >   competing with one another:  The national government, the California
> state
> >   government, doctors claiming their professional authority, and,
> finally,
> >   judges also evoking their own authority to interpret the Constitution.)
> In
> >   any event, assuming that judicial review is ever justified :) , I
> applaud
> >   the Ninth Circuit and the coalition of "left" and "right" in behalf of
> > liberty.
>