3 ms·

If we're all one country, how did the President get elected when the majority of the country voted for someone else? ..and yes, I'd prefer that the ruling was

If we're all one country, how did the President get elected when the majority of the country voted for someone else? ..and yes, I'd prefer that the ruling was that the online retailer had to get a business license in every state. That ruling would create such a torches and pitchforks situation from citizens suddenly having their lives disrupted that we'd quickly return to status quo.

Spivak 8y ago
I mean even if we lived under a monarchy we would still be one country, the two things aren't really related. That is the worst possible reason to enact a law. It should be obvious why making people's lives worse purposefully for political posturing is a bad idea, and you run the risk of your plan backfiring and having to live forever in the now-worse world.
- mullingitover 8y ago
  This isn't enacting a law, though. This is changing the interpretation of the constitution. Prior to this, the interpretation was that the framers' intent was for citizens to be governed by the laws of their own state, now it's not. Let the chips fall where they may.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    I don't think the distinction between legislative and common law is really meaningful in this case. A judge making a decision in a case like this is bringing a new law into existence. Suppose I the owner of a small retailer based out of Oregon but have a location in Ohio. Should I be exempt from collecting sales tax simply because my company is registered and HQ'd in Oregon? The previous ruling was no, Ohio has the right to require my company to collect sales tax for sales in Ohio, but the ruling required that my company have a physical presence in the state. All that happened today was that the requirement to be physically present was dropped. I mean the law is fairly narrowly scoped and certainly doesn't give states a blank check to write laws for citizens of other states.

Spivak 8y ago

I mean even if we lived under a monarchy we would still be one country, the two things aren't really related. That is the worst possible reason to enact a law. It should be obvious why making people's lives worse purposefully for political posturing is a bad idea, and you run the risk of your plan backfiring and having to live forever in the now-worse world.

mullingitover 8y ago
This isn't enacting a law, though. This is changing the interpretation of the constitution. Prior to this, the interpretation was that the framers' intent was for citizens to be governed by the laws of their own state, now it's not. Let the chips fall where they may.
- Spivak 8y ago
  I don't think the distinction between legislative and common law is really meaningful in this case. A judge making a decision in a case like this is bringing a new law into existence. Suppose I the owner of a small retailer based out of Oregon but have a location in Ohio. Should I be exempt from collecting sales tax simply because my company is registered and HQ'd in Oregon? The previous ruling was no, Ohio has the right to require my company to collect sales tax for sales in Ohio, but the ruling required that my company have a physical presence in the state. All that happened today was that the requirement to be physically present was dropped. I mean the law is fairly narrowly scoped and certainly doesn't give states a blank check to write laws for citizens of other states.