On Ryan's post

On Israel and the removal of handcuffs.... I said just that months ago. American distance from Israel diplomatically takes all the shackles off, the exact opposite of the situation in 1991 when scuds were landing in Jerusalem and Israel did nothing. Here is where the blind squirrel actually found a nut. A foreign policy snafu that accidentally reaps a benefit.

Had a little time to review the economic "freedom" of states, and New England states going to Canada for prescription drugs for their state health benefit packages seems perfectly fine to me... Is that an example of a State dealing with a foreign power? Or a governor dealing with a company that happens to do business outside the US? The dealing with multi-nat conglomerates isn't against the Constitution. But California making a deal with Mexico, or China, EXCLUSIVE to California is not cool. We're all on the same page here, right?

And Arizona, or Texas, or any of the border states, taking the lead in border security is another thing fundamentally NOT FAIR. It is a matter of national security, and thus under the umbrella of the Federal Government. Immigration is the same thing. Again, a matter of national security. In the 19th and 20th centuries, did the state of New York or New Jersey determine quotas and health standards for immigrants? No. But Ellis Island was on their turf so some state oversight was required.

Now, if the Feds decided NOT to deal with the problem, then by all means the border states have to pick up the bill. Were I a governor or a member of legislature in those states I would draft resolutions BILLING the feds for services rendered. (The success of that? Who knows, but tell me right now that wouldn't get someone re-elected in a heartbeat.)

I have to work tonight... I'll get back to this tomorrow.