|
|
|
|
|
|
by vladtaltos
4223 days ago
|
|
|
that's a pretty naive viewpoint. they could've just as easily built the facility on a military base... then what ? trying to prevent espionage through limiting access to resources is a very ineffective way... another point is that the law won't seem to have any effect (even if it passes by the way - no guarantees on that) on the current installation until 2021... 7 years is a pretty long term to revert a bill or make new legislation that allows other options... afaik (I'm not a us citizen) federal law supersedes state law in the US. So it follows that you need to have federal safeguards against wiretapping and whatnot... state legislation is cute at best but seems ineffective. |
|
|
States can draft laws that contradict federal laws (or disallow federal practices), leading to court cases where the state defends the constitutionality of their law, and the feds defend the constitutionality of the federal law (or practice.)
This is one of the faster ways a law can make its way to the supreme court (see the ACA implementation in half the states, before it came before SCOTUS and it was ruled constitutional.)
It'd be interesting to see this law take effect, have the feds sue, and watch the states defend their decision in the supreme court, in which case we'd get to see a ruling on the constitutionality of the wiretapping (if the justices were willing to hear/rule on it.)