4 ms·

I agree with you; in practice, however, when Alabama enacts anti-abortion law New Yorkers get pissed; when New Jersey enacts anti-gun law Texans get pissed. Eve

I agree with you; in practice, however, when Alabama enacts anti-abortion law New Yorkers get pissed; when New Jersey enacts anti-gun law Texans get pissed. Everyone want to push their favorite ideology nationwide and the federal government grows as a result.

gizmo686 6y ago
More practically, states have open borders. In the world where the constitution was written, this was not as big of a deal. However, improvement to transportation technology mean that it has become increasingly possible to circumvent one states laws by traveling to another state. Hence, any law a state may want to make legitimatly becomes an issue of interstate commerce, which is nessasarily a federal concern [0]. For instance, when Alabama enacts their anti-abortion law, they could have a legitamite grievence that their residents can hop in a car and spend a weekend taking a road trip up to New York (assuming every closer state passes a simmilar law) and get their abortion there. Or, when New Jersey passes their anti-gun law, they can get pissed that their citizens can go to Texas to buy guns and take them back to New Jersey. We (arguably) fought a civil war over this issue. States had different laws with regards to slavery. The southern states were upset that their laws on slavery were being undermined by the ability of slaves to travel to northern states which would than grant their freedom. A compromise was struck were federal law (the fugitive slave act) would require northern states to honor the slave laws of southern states and return slaves. Some northern states asserted their states rights to not follow this law; thereby continuing to allow slaves freedom once they crossed the border. We may have had a civil war regardless; but if the northern states weren't able to directly undermine the slavery laws of the southern states, it may not have reached that point. [0] Although, even with modern transportation technology, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) takes a very broad view of what constitutes interstate commerce.
- nradov 6y ago
  There's nothing wrong or unexpected about people circumventing laws in one state by traveling to another state. Interstate travel was already quite common when the Constitution was written so nothing has really changed.

gizmo686 6y ago

More practically, states have open borders. In the world where the constitution was written, this was not as big of a deal. However, improvement to transportation technology mean that it has become increasingly possible to circumvent one states laws by traveling to another state. Hence, any law a state may want to make legitimatly becomes an issue of interstate commerce, which is nessasarily a federal concern [0]. For instance, when Alabama enacts their anti-abortion law, they could have a legitamite grievence that their residents can hop in a car and spend a weekend taking a road trip up to New York (assuming every closer state passes a simmilar law) and get their abortion there. Or, when New Jersey passes their anti-gun law, they can get pissed that their citizens can go to Texas to buy guns and take them back to New Jersey. We (arguably) fought a civil war over this issue. States had different laws with regards to slavery. The southern states were upset that their laws on slavery were being undermined by the ability of slaves to travel to northern states which would than grant their freedom. A compromise was struck were federal law (the fugitive slave act) would require northern states to honor the slave laws of southern states and return slaves. Some northern states asserted their states rights to not follow this law; thereby continuing to allow slaves freedom once they crossed the border. We may have had a civil war regardless; but if the northern states weren't able to directly undermine the slavery laws of the southern states, it may not have reached that point. [0] Although, even with modern transportation technology, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) takes a very broad view of what constitutes interstate commerce.

nradov 6y ago
There's nothing wrong or unexpected about people circumventing laws in one state by traveling to another state. Interstate travel was already quite common when the Constitution was written so nothing has really changed.