Asteroids in Interstate Commerce

This Onion article, Republicans Vote To Repeal Obama-Backed Bill That Would Destroy Asteroid Headed For Earth, really misses the boat (and, we hope, the planet); thanks, Greg Vitercik, for bringing it to my attention. This is about states' rights.

Granted, the Onion's fictional¹ quote, "We believe that the decisions of how to deal with the massive asteroid are best left to the individual," attributed to the non-fictional Rep. Steve King of Iowa's 5th Congressional District, seems consistent with Rep. King's non-fictional objection to "the absurd premise that the Commerce Clause empowered the federal government to regulate Americans’ decisions not to engage in commercial activity." Case in point: if Ben had decided to stay on Earth with Liv instead of electing to join Bruce in implementing Billy Bob's plan to cause the gigantic asteroid to avoid interstate (or intra-state) commerce, would anyone seriously argue that the Federal government could force Ben to do so under its power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes?" Q.E.D.

No, the real issue here is that the federal government should not interfere in matters that are fully within the purview of the states. Let's face it, generally speaking, it would take a really, really, big asteroid to land on more than one state². Case in point: Late one night, near Billings, Montana, a gas tanker is driving by when a small meteor suddenly hits in front of the truck; this causes a massive fire, during which a meddling FEMA agent, traveling in an incredibly expensive taxpayer-supplied helicopter, institutes a Federal bail out of an imprudent homeowner by coming to his rescue, which seems like just another example of the Nanny State telling people where they can go and what they can do. This is, after all, only a single Montana meteor, and therefore fully within the purview of Montana to address: let's not make a Federal case out of everything³.

The closer call is hurtling meteoroids, comets, small solar system bodies, dwarf planets, minor planets, or other life threatening space debris (collectively, "LTSD") headed for a potentially interstate location, such as meteor showers bombarding New York City or an asteroid headed for Kansas City. If a meteoroid were to strike the Statue of Liberty⁴, that would be New York State LTSD; if another were to strike the submerged land surrounding the statue, that would be New Jersey State LTSD. If it were known ahead of time that LTSD might strike⁵ both New York and New Jersey, then perhaps the interstate commerce or "common defense" clauses might permit Congress to bring the full force of Hollywood to bear on the problem.

A new House rule, however, requires that every new bill or joint resolution introduced in the House include a statement citing the specific powers in the Constitution granted to Congress to enact the proposed law. In the absence of definitive proof of where the LTSD might land, it seems doubtful that this criterion could be timely met when Congress met to consider emergency Harry Stamper appropriations. Consider the relative harms that Congress would have to balance: on the one hand, a hurtling LTSD  4 miles across that would cause a global ecological disaster if it did indeed hit; on the other, trampling states' rights. It seems clear that any doubt must be resolved in favor of Federal non-interference with the states: why take the risk?

As Justice Brandeis famously wrote⁶, "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." Let's not tie the states' hands in implementing their own innovative policies to address life threatening space debris. New York might try Billy Bob Thornton's buried nuclear device theory; let Texas try three jet fighters each armed with a laser weapon. Let a thousand flowers bloom⁷! It will be exciting to see; in fact, I don't want to miss a thing.

¹ I admire The Onion's ability to discern fact from fiction, particularly regarding its coverage of events in Washington, D.C.

² Or a lucky bounce. But see fourth (4th) paragraph above.

³ The analysis is no different under the "provide for the common defense" clause. Unless the hurtling LTSD threatens the lives of citizens living in more than one state, it can hardly be regarded as a threat requiring a "common defense."

⁴ Which seems a virtual certainty, assuming disaster movies have any precendential value in predicting the behavior of hurtling LTSD.

⁵ I refuse to use this word as a verb unless wisdom teeth are somehow involved.

⁶ New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 280, 52 S.Ct. 371, 76 L.Ed. 747 (1932)

⁷  Or, anyway, 50.