4 ms·

>Commerce clause means that if something moves from state to state, that sure does seem like a Federal matter To clarify (as you no doubt know, but other reade

by ricree 8y ago

>Commerce clause means that if something moves from state to state, that sure does seem like a Federal matter To clarify (as you no doubt know, but other readers might not), this has been taken by courts to mean that any type of good that is traded between states is fair game for federal involvement, even if the actual product in question never has and never will travel outside of the state, or be bought or sold whatsoever.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
Yes! Good point. It's remarkable commerce clause passed this many years of scrutiny. It's extremely difficult to think of things it doesn't apply to.
gamblor956 8y ago
This isn't true...the interstate commerce clause may only regulate wholly intrastate commerce if the law regulates interstate commerce and the targeted intrastate transactions would affect the interstate commerce subject to regulation. See Gonzalez v. Raich (permitting the criminalization of marijuana farming of marijuana that could only legally be sold in-state because marijuana as a good could be sold across state borders). There aren't any cases governing wholly-intrastate physical goods no such goods exist, and generally when attempting to regulate otherwise purely local commerce (i.e., restaurants and civil rights), it is generally not a case of federal powers but rather of civil rights.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >if the law regulates interstate commerce and the targeted intrastate transactions would affect the interstate commerce subject to regulation Right, but the issue is that's so laughably wide that it's meaningless. Esp as the internet has made things easier, you can be certain it's legally arguable to "prove" that even a small time seller of some good is measurably impacting big company X.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    No, it's not so laughably wise as to be meaningless. For example, the interstate commerce clause cannot regulate service transactions (healthcare, legal, accounting, etc.). Esp as the internet has made things easier, you can be certain it's legally arguable to "prove" that even a small time seller of some good is measurably impacting big company X. That's not how it works at all. But what do I know? I've only successfully practiced law for a decade in state and federal courts.

by ricree 8y ago

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

Yes! Good point. It's remarkable commerce clause passed this many years of scrutiny. It's extremely difficult to think of things it doesn't apply to.

gamblor956 8y ago

This isn't true...the interstate commerce clause may only regulate wholly intrastate commerce if the law regulates interstate commerce and the targeted intrastate transactions would affect the interstate commerce subject to regulation. See Gonzalez v. Raich (permitting the criminalization of marijuana farming of marijuana that could only legally be sold in-state because marijuana as a good could be sold across state borders). There aren't any cases governing wholly-intrastate physical goods no such goods exist, and generally when attempting to regulate otherwise purely local commerce (i.e., restaurants and civil rights), it is generally not a case of federal powers but rather of civil rights.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>if the law regulates interstate commerce and the targeted intrastate transactions would affect the interstate commerce subject to regulation Right, but the issue is that's so laughably wide that it's meaningless. Esp as the internet has made things easier, you can be certain it's legally arguable to "prove" that even a small time seller of some good is measurably impacting big company X.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  No, it's not so laughably wise as to be meaningless. For example, the interstate commerce clause cannot regulate service transactions (healthcare, legal, accounting, etc.). Esp as the internet has made things easier, you can be certain it's legally arguable to "prove" that even a small time seller of some good is measurably impacting big company X. That's not how it works at all. But what do I know? I've only successfully practiced law for a decade in state and federal courts.