“In providing mail service across the country, the Postal Service attempts to work within local and state laws and regulations, when feasible,” wrote Breslin, after reminding “To Whom It May Concern” that postal workers promptly deliver over 200 billion pieces of mail annually.
“However, as you are probably aware, the Postal Service enjoys federal immunity from state and local regulation,” she continued.
I saw that in my morning's meander through the news.
ReplyDeleteMy move in response to this would be to arrest and detain pending trial the postal service drivers for the miscreancy and their station Postmaster(s) as accomplices.
Eric Hines
Interesting theory. I can see a problem with state laws that would purport to regulate the mail per se, but that's not quite the same as the full diplomatic immunity that this bureaucrat apparently thinks her people have.
ReplyDelete...a problem with state laws that would purport to regulate the mail per se....
ReplyDeleteBased on what (I think I see, but I'm curious about an actual lawyer's view), other than case law?
The Constitution only says that the Feds will establish post offices and post roads; there's nothing about regulating, unless that's subsumed in the establishing.
Eric Hines
I admit it's not an area in which I have expertise or one to which I've given a lot of thought. But federal pre-emption makes sense to me as long as it's not allowed to run wild as a concept. Pre-emption needn't be restricted to an area of "regulation," need it? If the Constitution says the federal government is supposed to exercise a function, then the states shouldn't be allowed to hamstring it. For instance, I wouldn't want to see Texas decide that it doesn't like the U.S. mail system and try to block it within its borders. And I say that even though I have almost no use for the U.S. mail system and would happily see it replaced by private companies, so my natural bent would be to cheer Texas on.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that. But there was a case (whose title I don't recall just now) shortly after our birth during the time of our first Federal banks when one of the states tried to tax the bank. The Supremes said taxing the real property the bank occupied was OK, so long as the rates were the same as those assessed on the rest of the state's real property; however, taxing the bank's business proceeds was not allowed--the state couldn't tax a Federal entity. Some "regulation" is allowed.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, it seems to me that regulation would be allowed from a safety matter: the Feds have to obey the same traffic laws as everyone else in the state--including citizens of another state visiting or resident in the one doing the assessing. The state can (or should be able to) govern mechanical and operating safety requirements of Federal vehicles in the same manner as it governs those things in state government vehicles and those of private citizens.
Hence: arrest the scofflaws and their postmasters.
...no use for the U.S. mail system and would happily see it replaced by private companies....
That would be an interesting thing to try. The Constitution only says that the Congress shall have power to...establish Post Offices and Post Roads[.] Nothing in there about the system being a government monopoly, or even a regulated monopoly, or any other kind of monopoly. The power to establish would seem to me to include the power to set the requirements to be met, but there seems room for private enterprise to run their own mail service, providing only that those criteria be met. And this is being done already in nearly all aspects except what is formally called "first class" mail.
Eric Hines
I definitely agree that the state's attempted regulation here is well within bounds. No way the feds get to argue pre-emption to excuse their drivers from obeying safety laws, especially ones that have absolutely nothing to do with the mail.
ReplyDelete