[M. Dodge Thomas]

IMO if you want to understand why "Federalism" recently stalled out in the Supreme Court, you are looking at one of the major reasons: corporations operating across state (and national) boundaries often much prefer Federal to state regulation of most business practices. (The major exception is labor law, and even in this case corporate opinion may be changing; for example the CEO of Federal Express recently listed the "hassle" of doing business in the US due to the lack of "national labor laws" as a reason US business finds it difficult to compete internationally.)

[tahiti]

the insurers and bankers complained of the burden of having to comply with regulators in 50 states, saying it was a very costly system that "provides no advantage to the consumer."

I would safely say the "very costly" means the insurers and bankers expend money to comply with the regulations.

With that being the case, consider the following:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98—963 JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al., PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

[January 24, 2000]

Justice Stevens, concurring.

"...therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property;"

Amendment V

"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

If I was the CEO of an "insurers and bankers" I would quit complying with the regulations until my institution was compensated for the taking for the public use because otherwise the regulations are unconstitutional.