Replies

I don't see that as protection. In fact, the way Schwarzenegger is forging GW agreements with other U.S. states and states of other countries tells me that federalism could actually accelerate the globalist agenda depending on the focus.

I'm torn on that. I absolutely oppose states making agreements with other countries (or states in other countries) -- that would seem 'way beyond the proper Constitutional powers of states. I'm unsure about whether states have the Constitutional power to make such agreements with other US states, though (based on an originalist Founders' perspective). It's something I need to study -- I've done a lot of reading on the original view of the Commerce Clause, but more as it relates to federal encroachment on state powers. One advantage I do see to states making pacts to address bogus problems (vs. the feds addressing bogus problems nationwide) is that at least in the former case, we test out what works and what doesn't in our state laboratories. That's cold-comfort for those living in the lab, though. If states are Constitutionally permitted to band together, it would also be interesting to see what would happen if they did so in pursuit of a positive goal. If it's good for the global warming goose, then maybe it would be good for, say, the pro-life gander (e.g., if Roe were repealed, several states band together to make sure abortion is not legal in an entire region). That may not be a great example -- tired brain!

That was good but more recently, Fred says he thinks climate change is real and that we have to come up with a solution "on a global basis," with India and China participating. He, admittedly, is more guarded than the whackos out there saying "the debate is over," but I want to hear more. His words thus far are not encouraging. In fact, I haven't heard anyone but Duncan at this point say anything good on this subject.

No, that's not encouraging. I'd like to hear more, as well. What did Duncan say?