3 ms·

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 nat

• willcipriano 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
      How would they claim this isn't a economic activity?
• dragonwriter 6y 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 6y ago
  If growing your own wheat for your own consumption is under the commerce clause so is every other economic activity