Ahnold + Tony + the Environment = Love 4-Eva

I'm next to positive that this is illegal. I read somewhere that the Constitution bans states from signing deals with foreign powers. Only the federal government has the authority to do that.

You're thinking of treaties. It is still a prerogative of the individual States to make business deals. So far.

A

As long as this is a completely unenforceable PR stunt, it's fine. To the extent it is more than that, it is impermissible.

The relevant clause in the Constitution is:

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power,"

So if this is an "agreement" it is illegal.

It is all up to your interpretation of the law and the symantics being used. While I admit there is a severe lack of details given in the article, never does it state that there will be any exchange of goods, services, or money between Britain and California. The only thing they have established is a "pledge" to both independantly research and implement emmissions reducing technologies. A PR stunt? Yes! But I think it couldn't come at a better time and hopefully it will get our current administation to open their eyes and lend a hand in solving the problem.

Interpretation of the law is only good who made them...

State of California should be an independent nation so as not to deal with federal bs. California can survive without U.S, so we have to declare independence.

All I can say is.... Good riddance!

>I'm next to positive that this is illegal. I read somewhere that the Constitution bans states from signing deals with foreign powers. Only the federal government has the authority to do that.

SO WHAT! Bush has been breaking the law his entire career. It may be illegal, but its the only thing he's done right so far.

I am from CA, and I think every state needs to approach the environment as seriously as we do. We have to take a stand. The FED must, instead of spending money in Iraq, contribute enough money to development of green alternatives. Where there is money, there is research, and competition to bring new technology to the market. This does not exist. We have to tackle this problem from every angle. We cannot just say: "OK, all industrial emissions have to be reduced." Before we do that, we have to develop alternative processes, which will ultimately replace what we have now. There is not enough federal support yet.

I am from CA, and I think every state needs to approach the environment as seriously as we do. We have to take a stand. The FED must, instead of spending money in Iraq, contribute enough money to development of green alternatives. Where there is money, there is research, and competition to bring new technology to the market. This does not exist. We have to tackle this problem from every angle. We cannot just say: "OK, all industrial emissions have to be reduced." Before we do that, we have to develop alternative processes, which will ultimately replace what we have now. There is not enough federal support yet.