Natanz nuclear complex in Iran
The Law of Pre-emption needs to be repealed ! (click here) It has already proven to cause massive deaths, refugees and abject poverty in one sovereign country while allowing the enemy of the USA to flourish in the first and only war front necessary !
...Some participants stressed that the United States may be entering an era in which preemption can and should be contemplated to protect public goods – to combat, for example, massive violations of human rights and impending environmental disasters.
Discussants stressed the need to understand the advantages, risks, challenges, and constraints of preemption; and how it differs from, complements, and potentially conflicts with alternative strategies such as prevention, deterrence, and containment as well as how it affects the pursuit of national interests and the establishment of international law. Working from historical cases and drawing parallels with domestic and tort law, the group enunciated a well-established legal basis for preemption when employed in self-defense, requiring imminence and demonstrable exhaustion of peaceful alternatives....
The Law of Preemption is reeking havoc across all levels of our courts, impinging upon State legislation and court actions. It is a hostile legislative measure that crosses the boundary of historical American law and attacks constitutions, both state and federal at all levels. It is a dangerous legislative directive and needs to be repealed !
Reassessing the law of preemption (click entry to title)
Georgetown Law Journal, Jul 2000 by Dinh, Viet D
Notwithstanding its repeated claims to the contrary, the Supreme Court's numerous preemption cases follow no predictable jurisprudential or analytical pattern. Part of the explanation for such indeterminacy lies in the nature of preemption analysis. Because " '[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone' in every preemption case,"1 the Court's preemption decisions necessarily vary across the different statutory schemes at issue. But although individual judgments may vary, surely the basic analytical framework should not differ across cases presenting essentially the same question: whether and to what extent federal law has displaced state law. Problems arise, and accusations of judicial activism or results orientation fly, when the Court professes adherence to established analytical frameworks or jurisprudential principles and yet renders judgments seemingly inconsistent with those frameworks and principles-as it often appears to do in preemption cases. This article seeks to make sense of the preemption mess by going back to first principles: by defining preemption and supremacy within the constitutional structure; by critically assessing the validity and meaning of core assumptions and principles the Court professes to follow in preemption cases; and by explaining how preemption analysis, properly conceived, can rationalize seeming inconsistencies between what the Court says and what it does in these disparate cases.
Reassessing the law of preemption (click entry to title)
Georgetown Law Journal, Jul 2000 by Dinh, Viet D
Notwithstanding its repeated claims to the contrary, the Supreme Court's numerous preemption cases follow no predictable jurisprudential or analytical pattern. Part of the explanation for such indeterminacy lies in the nature of preemption analysis. Because " '[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone' in every preemption case,"1 the Court's preemption decisions necessarily vary across the different statutory schemes at issue. But although individual judgments may vary, surely the basic analytical framework should not differ across cases presenting essentially the same question: whether and to what extent federal law has displaced state law. Problems arise, and accusations of judicial activism or results orientation fly, when the Court professes adherence to established analytical frameworks or jurisprudential principles and yet renders judgments seemingly inconsistent with those frameworks and principles-as it often appears to do in preemption cases. This article seeks to make sense of the preemption mess by going back to first principles: by defining preemption and supremacy within the constitutional structure; by critically assessing the validity and meaning of core assumptions and principles the Court professes to follow in preemption cases; and by explaining how preemption analysis, properly conceived, can rationalize seeming inconsistencies between what the Court says and what it does in these disparate cases.
