3 ms·

Murder is also a federal crime. You can be charged under state law or federal law or both. Not saying it's right, but it is what it is If there is going to b

Murder is also a federal crime. You can be charged under state law or federal law or both. Not saying it's right, but it is what it is If there is going to be an EPA, then the 14th amendment asserts equal protection of the law. So, states with their own emissions regime are actually nullifying federal law and violating equal protection. The incorporation clause of the 14th amendment would also be in play. How far this goes appears to be a constant battle in the courts and legislatures. The EPA itself is on shaky ground, as there is no authority granted to the federal government to create an EPA. Relying on the commerce clause is pretty lame, and barely a fig leaf. Generally when interpreting a text, the most specific statement is determinative, not the least specific.

mindslight 7y ago
I was talking about hypothetically if the federal government were to legalize murder, and was looking to push that ethic onto the states. > states with their own emissions regime are actually nullifying federal law and violating equal protection Erm, that does not make sense to me. What is legal is the intersection of the state and federal. If a state setting their own laws goes against "equal protection", then any concept of state sovereignty would be gone. Do you have any precedents backing up this line of thinking?
ReptileMan 7y ago
The main problem with commerce clause is that in 2019 everything is interstate commerce.
- tomohawk 7y ago
  The main problem with the commerce clause is that people don't know what it means, or rather, have conveniently changed its meaning. It gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Regulate, as in: make regular or normal. Commerce between the states was not normal, and was subject to tariffs and other restrictions. This clause removes the power to restrict interstate commerce from the states. It's not a license for congress to enact any law that they want. If it was, what's the point of the rest of the constitution?

mindslight 7y ago

I was talking about hypothetically if the federal government were to legalize murder, and was looking to push that ethic onto the states. > states with their own emissions regime are actually nullifying federal law and violating equal protection Erm, that does not make sense to me. What is legal is the intersection of the state and federal. If a state setting their own laws goes against "equal protection", then any concept of state sovereignty would be gone. Do you have any precedents backing up this line of thinking?

ReptileMan 7y ago

The main problem with commerce clause is that in 2019 everything is interstate commerce.

tomohawk 7y ago
The main problem with the commerce clause is that people don't know what it means, or rather, have conveniently changed its meaning. It gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Regulate, as in: make regular or normal. Commerce between the states was not normal, and was subject to tariffs and other restrictions. This clause removes the power to restrict interstate commerce from the states. It's not a license for congress to enact any law that they want. If it was, what's the point of the rest of the constitution?