Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly
Oh I almost forgot... states rights, for the win.
|
Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
The reason I say this is that there are plenty of states (offhand, I'd say 50 of them) that would very much like to have their own independent obscenity standard, their own policies with regard to violent video games, their own policies regarding what materials can and can't be transported across their state, etc. etc. etc.
(Yes, I know: each state has its own obscenity laws, but if they make their standard more restrictive than the Miller Test, then that standard is invalid. Just ask the state of Georgia, which is currently without an enforceable state obscenity law by virtue of the
This That and The Other case....)
There are areas where the supremacy clause and the dormant commerce clause are very, very good things. There's also unintended consequences to consider: what happens if/when one of the states that borders Mexico, Canada, or a coastal state, passes a law that says "we aren't going to enforce our border at all. It's WIDE open.... come on in." ?
Granted, in this case, Arizona is arguably just saying "me too!" on the enforcement of existing federal laws, and that might prove the difference between this law and my hypothetical of a state opening its border. I haven't done compare/contrast on this new state law and the relevant federal statutes involved (I'll leave that to the courts), but IME, state legislators
ALWAYS believe their laws are perfectly written and legally sound, even if/when the legislation in question is flawed to the core.
For those laughing off the notion and calling everybody who believes this statute has some potential Supremacy Clause related problems with it "idiots".... well, what can I say? Knowledge is not purely a function of intelligence, and you might not know as much about these things as you think.
