[_delirium]

> erect regulatory barriers to competition and entrepreneurship

Ah, so federal preemption is okay when it's good for businesses' profits (e.g. overriding state environmental and product-safety laws), but bad when it's bad or businesses' profits (e.g. imposing environmental or product-safety laws)? Sounds like policy-biased "federalism", not principled federalism.

[AnthonyMouse]

You're just talking about two different things. The purpose of the commerce clause is to allow the federal government to preempt protectionist state laws, but that doesn't exempt the federal regulations from having to be reasonable and not impede competition or entrepreneurship.

Allow me to make an important distinction. Environmental regulations can be expensive, because you might have to pay more for energy if you can't burn dirty fuels. Environmental regulations can be expensive, because a small business may need to hire a team of lawyers they can't afford, or fulfill bureaucratic requirements that make no logical sense. The first cost may be inevitable if we want to be able to breathe clean air. The second cost is totally inexcusable and is to be exterminated whenever discovered.