3 ms·

No? That would raise all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case.

by AndrewBissell 9y ago

sxates 9y ago
Berkeley can tax Soda but Oakland can't tax Coal?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- presidentender 9y ago
  Berkeley can only tax soda because the court hasn't ruled.
- simcop2387 9y ago
  Berkeley is also only trying to tax soda sold in berkeley. Oakland's issue is that they're trying to control the item being sold in other places, just because they're being brought through oakland.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    Which is why I’m curious about California taxing its ports for handling coal. Port services are sold in California.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
dragonwriter 9y ago
> That would raise all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case. The judge blocked this on contract, not interstate commerce grounds. FTFA: “The legal dispute hinged on whether the coal ban violated an agreement between the city and a company developing a bulk loading terminal near the city’s port.”
- rtkwe 9y ago
  That's through their current attempt which from the article sounds like it raised health and safety concerns. > Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, argued the city had no substantial evidence that shipping coal through the terminal would endanger the health of workers or surrounding communities. AndrewBissell was replying about them using taxes as a way to significantly discourage bringing coal through the Oakland port where the article is about them just attempting a regular ban which is against the contract which probably only allows the city to ban the port from moving a good if it poses a health/safety risk to the town.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > AndrewBissell was replying about them using taxes Right, but he didn't just say that such an effort would raise interstate commerce issues (which would be sort of correct, although the Art. I, Sec. 8 Commerce Clause issue—what is usually referred to by interstate commerce issues—is dwarfed by the bright-line Art. I, Sec. 9 export tax/duty issue) but that it would raise “all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case” which is wrong (or at least meaningless) since this was a case decided on contract, not interstate commerce, grounds.

No? That would raise all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case.

sxates 9y ago

Berkeley can tax Soda but Oakland can't tax Coal?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
presidentender 9y ago
Berkeley can only tax soda because the court hasn't ruled.
simcop2387 9y ago
Berkeley is also only trying to tax soda sold in berkeley. Oakland's issue is that they're trying to control the item being sold in other places, just because they're being brought through oakland.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Which is why I’m curious about California taxing its ports for handling coal. Port services are sold in California.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

dragonwriter 9y ago

> That would raise all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case. The judge blocked this on contract, not interstate commerce grounds. FTFA: “The legal dispute hinged on whether the coal ban violated an agreement between the city and a company developing a bulk loading terminal near the city’s port.”

rtkwe 9y ago
That's through their current attempt which from the article sounds like it raised health and safety concerns. > Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, argued the city had no substantial evidence that shipping coal through the terminal would endanger the health of workers or surrounding communities. AndrewBissell was replying about them using taxes as a way to significantly discourage bringing coal through the Oakland port where the article is about them just attempting a regular ban which is against the contract which probably only allows the city to ban the port from moving a good if it poses a health/safety risk to the town.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > AndrewBissell was replying about them using taxes Right, but he didn't just say that such an effort would raise interstate commerce issues (which would be sort of correct, although the Art. I, Sec. 8 Commerce Clause issue—what is usually referred to by interstate commerce issues—is dwarfed by the bright-line Art. I, Sec. 9 export tax/duty issue) but that it would raise “all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case” which is wrong (or at least meaningless) since this was a case decided on contract, not interstate commerce, grounds.