Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields
I don't see how this will have teeth. It would only affect money the state directly controls. I don't see how it will affect the businesses in those states.
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.
it's political exhibitionism. this is kind of like when VA's attorney general decided to file a separate suit from the other 13 states (or however many it was) that brought suit against the ACA. he just wanted his name in the paper so to help him (thankfully unsuccessfully) run for governor. politicians who do **** like this know it's meaningless, but it catches attention and their constituents get to pound on their chests and say "look how tough we are standing up to the evil feds". they get their names out there as people who will "take on big government" or some other fluffy BS.
This story looks manufactured by Reuters to help 0bam look put upon by state Republicans.
From what I read this story is about nothing. The states were asked about what they would do and a few state politicians said "X"How far this is going drives the point home on how far a political ideology is willing to go to stay as adversarial as possible.
But you have no problem with 0bama banning any of his team from say islamic terrorism or mentioning islam in anything but the most favorable light??I look at this in similar context to how I look at the States that have, or are trying, to ban government employees from saying "global warming" or "climate change." We are going to look extremely foolish down the road for making these purposefully combative State laws vs. Federal actions just because of the (D) or (R) behind someone's name.
What actions have these states taken? Have they passed any new laws in this regard??Come to think of it, what this really drives home is how far removed from reality politicians are. We say all day long that we do not like elements of the "deal" with Iran but doing this just screams political uselessness. In this case we are talking about a framework for a "deal" not yet signed but Republicans, and these States, are trying to submarine before the fact.
The dems have gotten crazier and crazier for sure and there are some crazy RINOs out there too.Am I the only one that thinks politicians are going bat **** crazy the further we go?
Among around a dozen states contacted directly by Reuters, legislators in Georgia, Florida, and Michigan said they had no intention of changing their Iran policies even in light of a federal deal. State officials in Connecticut and Illinois said new local legislation would be needed to change their divestment policies, even if a deal were signed. Officials in New York and Oregon told Reuters they would look to changes in law at the federal level in the case of a nuclear deal to determine how it would affect their policies.
Officials at Iran's mission to the United Nations did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters on the state policies. White House spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan did not respond directly to a Reuters query about states' sanctions policies, but stressed that only sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program would be affected by a deal.
The first divestment campaigns gathered steam in 2008 and 2009, and received a federal stamp of approval in 2010 with passage of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which encouraged states to pass such measures.....snip~
Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran | Reuters