3 ms·

There's something overriding state's rights though, and that's interstate commerce. People have to be free to move from state to state unimpeded, and states hav

There's something overriding state's rights though, and that's interstate commerce. People have to be free to move from state to state unimpeded, and states have to allow for open trade across their borders. With that in mind, the federal government is free to mandate certain things that otherwise would hinder that freedom of movement and trade. If my state chose not to require an address on a driver's license, other states would not be able to enforce their laws on me while I am in their state, for example. If they don't require birthdates, other states can't enforce their drinking laws. If they don't require height and weight, other states would have a hard time verifying it's me. The list goes on and on. For interstate commerce, it makes sense that the federal government can mandate that states have to have at least some amount of minimal information on their licenses, otherwise the feds should issue a card with that information printed on it.

nickff 10y ago
>"the federal government is free to mandate certain things that otherwise would hinder that freedom of movement and trade" This logic gives the Federal Government almost unlimited power, since almost everything affects commerce. Are you proposing that commandeering of state governments by the federal government be permitted? What limits would you place on this 'right to encourage commerce'?
- rblatz 10y ago
  Unfortunately that is what has happened. The commerce clause has become so broad that growing crops on your own land to feed your own animals counts as interstate commerce.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Yes, I think Wickard v. Filburn was incorrectly decided, and must be overturned, regardless of stare decisis. It seems that the comment I replied to had actually proposed an even more expansive interpretation of the commerce clause, which would broaden the federal government's power to regulate all state government activities with an impact on commerce, which I would interpret as absolutely everything.
hammock 10y ago
As it is, it's only by agreement (preserving state sovereignty) that Virginia allows you to use a Maryland ID to buy beer in Virginia in the first place. Or to drive on state roads in Virginia, for that matter. And if your state-issued ID doesn't have a birthdate on it (some don't), then you don't get to use it to buy beer. The system works now why do you think it needs to be mandated? Side note, do you also think that passing one state's bar exam should allow you to practice law in every state? Or that there should be one national bar exam? Or a uniform set of laws in every state?

nickff 10y ago

>"the federal government is free to mandate certain things that otherwise would hinder that freedom of movement and trade" This logic gives the Federal Government almost unlimited power, since almost everything affects commerce. Are you proposing that commandeering of state governments by the federal government be permitted? What limits would you place on this 'right to encourage commerce'?

rblatz 10y ago
Unfortunately that is what has happened. The commerce clause has become so broad that growing crops on your own land to feed your own animals counts as interstate commerce.
- nickff 10y ago
  Yes, I think Wickard v. Filburn was incorrectly decided, and must be overturned, regardless of stare decisis. It seems that the comment I replied to had actually proposed an even more expansive interpretation of the commerce clause, which would broaden the federal government's power to regulate all state government activities with an impact on commerce, which I would interpret as absolutely everything.

hammock 10y ago

As it is, it's only by agreement (preserving state sovereignty) that Virginia allows you to use a Maryland ID to buy beer in Virginia in the first place. Or to drive on state roads in Virginia, for that matter. And if your state-issued ID doesn't have a birthdate on it (some don't), then you don't get to use it to buy beer. The system works now why do you think it needs to be mandated? Side note, do you also think that passing one state's bar exam should allow you to practice law in every state? Or that there should be one national bar exam? Or a uniform set of laws in every state?