3 ms·
From a US perspective, how would you deal with interstate commerce? Would the federal government be able to interfere as a result? Would companies State A (whe
by gtyras2mrs 5y ago
From a US perspective, how would you deal with interstate commerce? Would the federal government be able to interfere as a result?
Would companies State A (where drugs are legal) be able to trade freely with citizens in State B (where drugs are illegal) without an inspection at the border? Would citizens from State B (where guns are legal) be able to travel freely to State A (where they are heavily restricted) without an inspection at the border?
What laws could State B (where abortion is illegal) create to punish its residents for travelling to State A (where abortions are legal) to get an abortion? How would this disparately impact people based on wealth (i.e someone who could freely afford to fly to State A, vs someone who lives on a min-wage job)
- dane-pgp 5y agoMy understanding is that US states aren't able to pass extraterritorial laws or claim personal jurisdiction based on someone being normally resident within their state. That should prevent states from punishing residents for travelling to carry out acts which are legal at their destination. Similarly it should be implicit from the existence and intent of the amendment that the Interstate Commerce Clause doesn't allow the federal government to render it null and void. I think it is a common legal principle that earlier, more general laws are overridden by later, more specific laws. Finally, I don't think there is anything unique about this hypothetical amendment from the perspective of wealth inequality. There are plenty of things that wealthier people are able to take advantage of, including travelling to countries where the drinking age is lower, for example.