A summary of analysis of the text, its introduction and further consideration of the Bill along with a numerical analysis of its non cloture in Senate in 1991-92 confirms the hypothesis that conservatives prefer limited federal impositions on states as against liberals who are more inclined towards limited state autonomy. This is evident from non cloture of the Product Liability Fairness Act in the Senate. The Act was designed to provide uniform laws for conduct of commerce across the states and considerably benefit the consumers by bringing them under federal laws which would have applied to the entire United States.
This would have in some ways supported the state laws and where these were found to be weak to protect the consumer interests in inter state cases, the applicability of the federal law would have strengthened the consumer. However it appears that even this legislation in the interest of the consumer did not find favor with the Senate. Conclusion Ideological support for state independence from federal mandates receives greater support from conservatives than liberals as conservatives are inclined towards greater self government and prefer limited federal impositions on states as against liberals who generally seek limited state autonomy.
This has been the central theme of this hypothesis. Examination of two diverse cases proves the hypothesis in full measure. In the first case federal mandates have been restricted in their application to states and also adequate compensation is sought to be provided when they are seen to do so. This was passed by the House of Representatives with an overwhelming majority by the Republicans and two thirds support by the Democrats. Thus signifying that there was some support for restrictions on federal powers in states within the liberal lobby as well.
In the other case, of Product Liability Fairness Act, the cloture could not be pursued in the Senate due to lack of support from the Republicans with over 90 percent not accepting the move for cloture. Numerically speaking, approximately one third Democrats supported the rejection of the move to bring the Bill for cloture and to that extent are seen to be in the conservative mould. While generalization may not be reasonable, as a number of local factors may have also affected the voting pattern, when viewed in conjunction with the vote on restrictions imposed on federal mandates, the hypothesis is substantiated.
This is also a trend which has been denoted in relation to other bills when republicans are known to oppose federalism. (Feder : 2003). The general cause for such a split appears to be the dilemma created by federalism which is associated with shared decision making. (Pierson : 1995). It is important that this be resolved based on the realities of the situation rather than natural proclivities as US legislators tend to do as proved by the two cases above.
It has also been noticed in a number of other cases that when it was felt that the central government attempts to impinge on state rights, the Republicans even when in opposition have been voicing their concern. (Rockwell : 1995). This trend has been confirmed herein. It would therefore be prudent to conclude that given exceptions, conservatives have a strong inclination for state support while liberals will tend to support federal powers with a variation of approxiamtely 35 percent as shown by the two cases above. TABLES.
Voting Profile – Affiliation Affiliation No of Votes – Yeas No of Votes – Nays Not Voted Republican 230 – – Democrats 130 73 1 Independents – 1 – Table 1 Percentage of Voting Profile – Affiliation Affiliation Percentage of Votes – Yeas Percentage of Votes – Nays Percentage of Not Voted Republican 100 – – Democrats 63. 72 35. 7 . 49 Independents – 100 – Table 2 Affiliation Percentage in Voting Yeas/Nays Affiliation Percentage of Votes in Yeas Percentage of Votes in Nays Percentage of Not Voted Republican 63. 9 – – Democrats 36. 1 98.
6 100 Independents – 1. 4 – Table 3 Voting Profile – Affiliation Affiliation No of Votes – Yeas No of Votes – Nays Republican 40 3 Democrats 18 35 Table 4 Percentage of Voting Profile Affiliation Percentage of Votes – Yeas Percentage of Votes – Nays Republican 93. 1 6. 9 Democrats 33. 9 66. 1 Table 5 Affiliation Percentage in Voting Yeas/Nays Affiliation Affiliation wise Percentage of Votes in Yeas Affiliation wise Percentage of Votes in Nays Republican 68. 9 7. 9 Democrats 31. 1 92. 1 Table 6 References 1. Pierson Paul. (1995).
Fragmented Welfare States: Federal Institutions and the Development of Social Policy.. Governance 8 (4), 449-478. http://www. blackwell-synergy. com/links/doi/10. 1111/j. 1468-0491. 1995. tb00223. x/abs/(11 April 2006). 2. Feder, Don. (2003). Should more conservative officeholders defy outrageous edicts of federal courts? Insight on the News. 14 October 2003. http://www. findarticles. com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_Oct_14/ai_108845652. (10 April 2006).
3. Rockwell, Llewellyn H, Jr (2003). Centralism vs. states’ rights. Insight on the News, Feb 13, 1995 http://www. findarticles. com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n31_v10/ai_15674652 ( 11 April 2006). 4. Lund, Nelson. (2005). The mandate hoax of 1995 – Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 National Review. Nov 27, 1995. 5. Clinton, Bill. (2005).
Remarks on signing the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. – Transcript Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, March 27, 1995 March 22, 1995 6. Schoenbrod, David. (1999). Environmental Controls Should Be Turned Over to the States. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), May, 1999.