It's a fine point, but the court didn't find Maryland violated Federal law. The case was based on Federal pre-emption, which basically says that a Federal law so throroughly occupies a field as to deprive the state of the authority to act.
If I agreed that Wal-Mart improves the lives of working people, I would agree that there is irony in the left's criticism of the company. On the other hand, the irony of a conservative crowing about the Feds muscling states out of the authority to regulate their own economies is patent.
Pho,
Thanks for the comment, and clarifying the point on pre-emption.
On the issue of Federal v State's rights, I don't think that the conservative position in necessarily 100% in the state's corner.
As I recall, the Constitution gives Congress the power to prevent the states from doing a number of things, such as erecting trade barriers between the states, etc.
I'm certainly not going to make the arugment that this authority hasn't been overused, or that perhaps conservatives as well as liberals don't endorse / criticize specific results.
Certainly, I'm in favor of less federal, state, and local regulation of business than we currently have, and this position might sometimes come into conflict with the competing good of allowing local / state governments to expiriment with different levels of regulation, taxes, etc.
So, we have the competing goods of a) increased local control vs b) impeding commerce and growth by allowing many conflicting levels of regulation.
For a comment, this has gone on way too long.
Ah well.
Oh Pho, ERISA was Ted Kennedy's and the Watergate Congress's brainchild. So if there is irony, it's a Dem-dominated state legislature trying to take authority over employee-benefit mandates and regulations away from the Feds.
Commenting by HaloScan
