7 ms·

Not a lawyer but I think this would be constitutional in the same way that international sanctions are constitutional. The regulation of interstate and foreign

Not a lawyer but I think this would be constitutional in the same way that international sanctions are constitutional. The regulation of interstate and foreign commerce is an enumerated power given to congress and usually interpreted pretty broadly.

xxpor 5y ago
That's right, but a company in a state selling to a state gov isn't engaging in interstate commerce. Maybe SCOTUS will use the cockamamie "but the market is nationwide so it still affects it" excuse but normally...
- willcipriano 5y ago
  Wickard v. Filburn pretty much ended the idea of any real limitations in regards to calling something interstate commerce: "An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone 'interstate" commerce'..." Roscoe lost. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Wickard v. Filburn pretty much ended limitations in regards to interstate commerce. It did not, illustrated by among others, US v. Lopez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      How would they claim this isn't a economic activity?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > That's right, but a company in a state selling to a state gov isn't engaging in interstate commerce. A company commercially gathering data that is not exclusively limited to data on in-state activities of in-state residents from (transitively) exclusively in-state sources, and selling it, is engaging in interstate commerce.
- djbebs 5y ago
  If growing your own wheat for your own consumption is under the commerce clause so is every other economic activity

xxpor 5y ago

That's right, but a company in a state selling to a state gov isn't engaging in interstate commerce. Maybe SCOTUS will use the cockamamie "but the market is nationwide so it still affects it" excuse but normally...

willcipriano 5y ago
Wickard v. Filburn pretty much ended the idea of any real limitations in regards to calling something interstate commerce: "An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone 'interstate" commerce'..." Roscoe lost. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Wickard v. Filburn pretty much ended limitations in regards to interstate commerce. It did not, illustrated by among others, US v. Lopez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    How would they claim this isn't a economic activity?
dragonwriter 5y ago
> That's right, but a company in a state selling to a state gov isn't engaging in interstate commerce. A company commercially gathering data that is not exclusively limited to data on in-state activities of in-state residents from (transitively) exclusively in-state sources, and selling it, is engaging in interstate commerce.
djbebs 5y ago
If growing your own wheat for your own consumption is under the commerce clause so is every other economic activity