4 ms·

"My question, restated, is what part of the US constitution do you think prohibits anti-gouging laws?" You specifically claimed that these were state laws and

"My question, restated, is what part of the US constitution do you think prohibits anti-gouging laws?" You specifically claimed that these were state laws and thus were not subject to federal constitutional limits, which is absurdly wrong. Why you would even inject that, and then strangely start spinning in a different direction, is left for one to wonder. Then again, you also grotesquely misrepresented my post, so I understand your comment has zero sincerity and instead you're just stomping your feet and saying "gouging bad!" despite agreement by all parties. As to your "I did a Google search" -- Again, convictions. John Shepperson was not convicted. No one is EVER convicted. Anyone who contests the fines see them dissolved. It's a feel good for stupid people.

eesmith 7y ago
This appears to still be a disagreement on details where you are not reading what I wrote. All I want to know is why anti-gouging laws are "of dubious constitutional basis." You write that I wrote "and thus were not subject to federal constitutional limits" I was more nuanced. I said "not really subject to direct US Federal Constitution limits". There is no direct Federal Constitution limit on anti-gouging laws. (By comparison, see the direct prohibition on slavery (except as punishment for a criminal conviction)). Therefore, if something isn't constitutional it must derive from some other principle, like the commerce clause, or perhaps interpretation. Which is it? Now, I am a programmer, with no legal training or political science training past high school classes. It's entirely possible that I have the terminology wrong. But I don't see how it's so wrong as to rate your response. You constructed a quote from me: "I did a Google search" As I wrote, I used DuckDuckGo. I realize "Google search" has taken on the generic meaning of "web search", but point it out as part of what seems to be your pattern of re-interpreting what I wrote in a way which I thought I was clear to not say. "Again, convictions" I think you have misread the thread. The OP wrote "This guy did something that at a minimum will make him a pariah in his community and at worst could get him convicted of crimes in several states" You rejected "convicted". Sure. I'm fine with that. Because that wasn't my point. I wrote "Prosecutions occur often enough that I'm surprised to hear you say they don't have a constitutional basis." I even showed how one anti-gouging law was found invalid because of its conflict with the commerce clause. But that finding was specific to the details of that law. You then followed up with "No, no they don't. You could count them on one hand." The "they" in this case was "prosectutions", because your text directly quoted what I wrote on prosecutions. It was not about convictions. So no, I did not bring up John Shepperson as an example of being jailed. I brought him up as an example of being prosecuted. Which was exactly the issue you said happened fewer than 6 times. You write "Anyone who contests the fines see them dissolved". I did point out that "78 gas stations and other businesses" in GA were fined. I suppose you'll say they weren't contested and dissolved because it was cheaper to pay the fine than to contest. But honestly, I don't care. I want to know how anti-gouging laws are "of dubious constitutional basis", not how they are of dubious effectiveness. You have yet to address that issue.
- endorphone 7y ago
  Compress your responses. A giant wall is not conducive of anything. Unconstitutional because there is no such thing as a "fair" cost for things, and when the state intrudes on commerce in a capricious, arbitrary manner it is unconstitutional, as has been shown countless times in countless cases. This isn't difficult. Though again you accuse me of misreading the thread. LOL.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    "giant wall" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_pr... What part of the constitution are you referencing? Which court cases? I've looked for a couple of hours, but failed to find anything. Without something concrete, I will conclude your original statement about dubiousness is unsupported. Why are all anti-gouging laws necessarily capricious and arbitrary? Certainly some may be, but some are no less capricious and arbitrary than saying that 21 is the legal drinking age or that the speed limit on a given highway is 65 mph. Eg, "During a declared emergency, selling goods and services at a price that is at least 10% higher than it was immediately preceding the declaration." - https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gouging-laws-by-state.html https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gou... Anti-gouging laws are a subset of price controls. The US has had price controls before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls#United_States . If what you say is true, then how are price controls constitutional but anti-gouging laws are not?

eesmith 7y ago

This appears to still be a disagreement on details where you are not reading what I wrote. All I want to know is why anti-gouging laws are "of dubious constitutional basis." You write that I wrote "and thus were not subject to federal constitutional limits" I was more nuanced. I said "not really subject to direct US Federal Constitution limits". There is no direct Federal Constitution limit on anti-gouging laws. (By comparison, see the direct prohibition on slavery (except as punishment for a criminal conviction)). Therefore, if something isn't constitutional it must derive from some other principle, like the commerce clause, or perhaps interpretation. Which is it? Now, I am a programmer, with no legal training or political science training past high school classes. It's entirely possible that I have the terminology wrong. But I don't see how it's so wrong as to rate your response. You constructed a quote from me: "I did a Google search" As I wrote, I used DuckDuckGo. I realize "Google search" has taken on the generic meaning of "web search", but point it out as part of what seems to be your pattern of re-interpreting what I wrote in a way which I thought I was clear to not say. "Again, convictions" I think you have misread the thread. The OP wrote "This guy did something that at a minimum will make him a pariah in his community and at worst could get him convicted of crimes in several states" You rejected "convicted". Sure. I'm fine with that. Because that wasn't my point. I wrote "Prosecutions occur often enough that I'm surprised to hear you say they don't have a constitutional basis." I even showed how one anti-gouging law was found invalid because of its conflict with the commerce clause. But that finding was specific to the details of that law. You then followed up with "No, no they don't. You could count them on one hand." The "they" in this case was "prosectutions", because your text directly quoted what I wrote on prosecutions. It was not about convictions. So no, I did not bring up John Shepperson as an example of being jailed. I brought him up as an example of being prosecuted. Which was exactly the issue you said happened fewer than 6 times. You write "Anyone who contests the fines see them dissolved". I did point out that "78 gas stations and other businesses" in GA were fined. I suppose you'll say they weren't contested and dissolved because it was cheaper to pay the fine than to contest. But honestly, I don't care. I want to know how anti-gouging laws are "of dubious constitutional basis", not how they are of dubious effectiveness. You have yet to address that issue.

endorphone 7y ago
Compress your responses. A giant wall is not conducive of anything. Unconstitutional because there is no such thing as a "fair" cost for things, and when the state intrudes on commerce in a capricious, arbitrary manner it is unconstitutional, as has been shown countless times in countless cases. This isn't difficult. Though again you accuse me of misreading the thread. LOL.
- eesmith 7y ago
  "giant wall" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_pr... What part of the constitution are you referencing? Which court cases? I've looked for a couple of hours, but failed to find anything. Without something concrete, I will conclude your original statement about dubiousness is unsupported. Why are all anti-gouging laws necessarily capricious and arbitrary? Certainly some may be, but some are no less capricious and arbitrary than saying that 21 is the legal drinking age or that the speed limit on a given highway is 65 mph. Eg, "During a declared emergency, selling goods and services at a price that is at least 10% higher than it was immediately preceding the declaration." - https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gouging-laws-by-state.html https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gou... Anti-gouging laws are a subset of price controls. The US has had price controls before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls#United_States . If what you say is true, then how are price controls constitutional but anti-gouging laws are not?