4 ms·
IANAL, but this is technically legal, so long as it's used ONLY for commerce, by means of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. After that, it
by younata 16y ago
IANAL, but this is technically legal, so long as it's used ONLY for commerce, by means of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
After that, it becomes unconstitutional, far as I know.
So, in other words, it's unconstitutional, because it won't be used only for commerce.
- forensic 16y agoConstitution is meaningless these days. "Unconstitutional" is defined by the emotional whims and ideologies of judges.
- prodigal_erik 16y agoThe commerce clause in particular has been used to justify most anything, including laws around production of your own goods because that can function as an alternative to interstate commerce. But strict constructionism isn't an answer either. We shouldn't only have a right to bear 18th century arms, or let computer files be searched without a warrant merely because they aren't on paper. It's always going to be subjective, applying the law to questions that didn't even exist back when it was written. We have to do it, but we have to be more careful about it than we have.
- jschuur 16y agoI thought 'unconstitutional' was defined by pundits, politicians and commenters who didn't like the latest policy du jour by Guy In Charge?