A bit of a tangent in the current context, but I have slight issues with your framing here: mechanisms that prevent the federal government telling the state governments what to do are not necessarily mechanisms that protect individuals citizens, although they could be. But equally, if the federal government is more inclined to protect the rights of individual citizens than the state government is, then they are the opposite. And sometimes framing it in terms of individual rights is just the wrong way to think about it: i.e. if the federal government wants some economic regulation and the state government doesnāt, and the regulation has complex costs and benefits that work out well for some citizens and badly for others, then āis it the feds or the state government protecting citizenās rightsā might not be a particularly helpful framing.
This isnāt just abstract, historically in the South, it was often the feds who wanted to protect Black citizens and the state governments who wanted to avoid this under the banner of stateās rights.
This isnāt just abstract, historically in the South, it was often the feds who wanted to protect Black citizens and the state governments who wanted to avoid this under the banner of stateās rights.
This is exactly what I was thinking about. I thought this was the reason why the civil rights movement was heavily reliant on the constitutional amendments passed during Reconstruction.
What is your point? In this case Congress is showing no interest in AI regulation and is heavily lobbied by AI labs and related defense contractors, but state legislatures can act as a check on this, as the federalist system intended.
In animal welfare, federal preemption is usually about powerful lobbies (animal ag, pesticides) wanting control and having more influence at the federal level. Thatās the closer analogy in this caseā AI company lobbies want to have a bottleneck they control. If Congress passes federal AI regulation, it can always preempt state-level regulation. What that provision says is states canāt regulate AI and thereās no federal proposal for doing so instead.
A bit of a tangent in the current context, but I have slight issues with your framing here: mechanisms that prevent the federal government telling the state governments what to do are not necessarily mechanisms that protect individuals citizens, although they could be. But equally, if the federal government is more inclined to protect the rights of individual citizens than the state government is, then they are the opposite. And sometimes framing it in terms of individual rights is just the wrong way to think about it: i.e. if the federal government wants some economic regulation and the state government doesnāt, and the regulation has complex costs and benefits that work out well for some citizens and badly for others, then āis it the feds or the state government protecting citizenās rightsā might not be a particularly helpful framing.
This isnāt just abstract, historically in the South, it was often the feds who wanted to protect Black citizens and the state governments who wanted to avoid this under the banner of stateās rights.
Agree that the framing is imperfect but as you say your point is a tangent
This is exactly what I was thinking about. I thought this was the reason why the civil rights movement was heavily reliant on the constitutional amendments passed during Reconstruction.
What is your point? In this case Congress is showing no interest in AI regulation and is heavily lobbied by AI labs and related defense contractors, but state legislatures can act as a check on this, as the federalist system intended.
I agree that emphasizing the virtues of federallism is good in general and also in this particular case :)
Who framed it in terms of individual rights?
In animal welfare, federal preemption is usually about powerful lobbies (animal ag, pesticides) wanting control and having more influence at the federal level. Thatās the closer analogy in this caseā AI company lobbies want to have a bottleneck they control. If Congress passes federal AI regulation, it can always preempt state-level regulation. What that provision says is states canāt regulate AI and thereās no federal proposal for doing so instead.
āWho framed it in terms of individual rights?ā
Nuno did. Iām not criticizing you or suggesting this legislation is other than bad.