Federalist Society federalism opposes the deliberately national structure of pollution statutes

Evidence

The Federalist Society, for instance, advocated a diminished role for national government and heightened constitutional safeguards for the individual states. It opposed national laws that its members believed improperly usurped the states’ prerogative to decide for themselves how to regulate their economies, as well as laws that conscripted state apparatus to achieve nationally dictated social policies. The federal pollution control statutes, however, were deliberately national in perspective. They routinely created national standards and then, based on a variety of legislative carrots and sticks, sought to coerce and encourage states to enact the necessary implementing legislation and to undertake the necessary administration and enforcement. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 538

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Environmental lawmaking polarized completely along party lines by the 1990s. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 685; Environmental statutes are radical redistributive acts passed through deliberately conservative institutions — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 18; Federal environmental law rests awkwardly on a commerce rationale foreign to its aims — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 195 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Conservative environmentalism treats endangered species laws as free-market intrusions #exemplifies (0.82) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2520
• Property law’s boundary-invasion frame cannot address external pollution threats to federal lands #complicates (0.80) — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 792
• Federalism arguments are usually veils for substantive policy goals #qualifies (0.78) — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3801