5 ms·

Does Congress have that power? I suppose you could argue they're interstate commerce regulations, but idk if that'd fly. Edit: Obvious SD v Wayfair is relevant

by xxpor 5y ago

Does Congress have that power? I suppose you could argue they're interstate commerce regulations, but idk if that'd fly. Edit: Obvious SD v Wayfair is relevant here, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf It's too complex to even take a stab at guessing what they'd say based on that though. Also, I'd forgotten what a wild lineup the votes were. GINSBURG, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. Edit again: Seems Roberts agrees Congress can do something: Roberts noted that Congress has been considering whether to alter the physical-presence rule, and “nothing in today’s decision precludes Congress from continuing to seek a legislative solution. But by suddenly changing the ground rules, the Court may have waylaid Congress’s consideration of the issue.” The majority “proceeds with an inexplicable sense of urgency,” the chief justice said, and it “breezily disregards the costs that its decision will impose on retailers.” There are complex distinctions made in more than 10,000 taxing jurisdictions, he said. “New Jersey knitters pay sales tax on yarn purchased for art projects, but not on yarn earmarked for sweaters,” Roberts said, while Texas imposes a sales tax on plain deodorant but not on deodorant with antiperspirant, and Illinois treats Twix and Snickers bars differently for sales-tax purposes. https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-expands-states-ability-to-require-internet-retailers-to-collect-sales-tax/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-ex...

mywittyname 5y ago
Probably not to enforce standards, but they certainly have the power to create standards and incentivize their use. Much in the same way they can't control speed limits on national highways or the drinking age in various states, yet these laws are largely uniform across the country.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Those rules have to be on a funding source that's plausibly related and it has to be non-coercive. I'm struggling to think of a relevant funding source here.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > Those rules have to be on a funding source that's plausibly related and it has to be non-coercive. That seems to not be the case in practice. Highway funding is dependent on states setting a legal drinking age no lower than 21. Those two things are not plausibly related. And it's definitely coercive.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - xxpor 5y ago
      The two are completely plausibly related. Drinking age has a direct affect on the amount of drunk driving on roads and therefore the safety of them. The main group behind the push to 21 was Mothers Against Drunk Driving. In fact, the Supreme Court case about this was where they came up with the rule! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole The actual test is: The spending must promote "the general welfare." The condition must be unambiguous. The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs." The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional. The condition must not be coercive.
tzs 5y ago
It's kind of hinted at somewhere in Wayfair that this is really kind of about the defaults when Congress declines to speak. Congress has extremely broad powers to regulate interstate commerce which would let them decide if and how states can make sellers in other states collect for them. So far, Congress has declined to weigh in, and so we get the default. For some things the default is that states cannot do them unless Congress says they can. For others the default is that they can do them unless Congress says they cannot. With Congress remaining silent, it is up to the courts to figure out what the default is for a given thing. Wayfair is essentially saying the older decisions picked the wrong default.
- ploffmaxys 5y ago
  Sorry Ot and won't sound offensive, but i am reading each 'commerce' interpreted with 'ads' -so my two cents... (-; comic #646 are you in a partisan state ?: > //abload.de/img/646_en_areyouinapartisxjts.png
- frankfrankfrank 5y ago
  Although your belief is a common one even at the highest levels, reality is that Art. 1, §8, cl. 2 is not actually as broad a power as is believed and/or imagined. People are reading something into that clause that did not exist when it was written, nor should it exist today. It is a function of the misunderstanding of what "regulate" means as it is and was meant, rather than what today's manipulators or "designing men" as Andrew Jackson called them, intend to imprint on it. When written, "regulate" did not mean control by authoritarian and dictatorial means, absent of checks and balances and controls on power as it is implied today, i.e., "we {insert unelected bureaucratic authoritarian agency} decree by regulation that you may not do this thing or that you have to do this thing." What "regulate" meant when written was to order and bring into purpose suited structure, to bring into a regular state, opposed to an irregular state. There was no overt or hidden or implied sense of manipulation and control implied, it was a description of state, not action. It is something that is to a large extend willingly overlooked by those who are authoritarian minded, but this natural entropy of language/meaning and even often deliberate and intentional manipulation of language and words (see today's public dialogue and clear and intentional manipulation of language, i.e., you can say some things and the meaning and use of other things is imposed or assaulted), causes excessive amounts of problems. A good example of this kind of change, is the word matrix; that means a pattern of lines or marks, usually in a uniform layout, which used to mean nothing more than a female breeding animal since time before records and well into the 18th century, including even today in niche agricultural circles. The connection to the breeding female coming from the sense that a mathematical matrix is a component into which quantities can be set, or bred into. Congress does not technically have the right to control commerce, let alone trade, but it does have the power to set commerce into and orderly, or regular state; opposed to an irregular state, i.e., into a wanton and unpredictable state. That does not include using its powers to change or manipulate it with objectives or outcomes in mind. But regardless of what I say or even the founders meant, the great powers of human hive-mindedness and whoever can control it will ultimately determine the outcome and impacts. We are rapidly approaching a state where everything and anything in the Constitution is essentially put through an authoritarianism conversion where everything is interpreted as meaning centralized control and power, while always and relentlessly stripping individuals of power and control over their own lives and freedoms … all by changing language, which is precisely why certain groups are so focused on changing the language, because if you change the meaning of freedom to slavery, then you are halfway to 1984.
bsimpson 5y ago
TIL states can now force out-of-state companies to collect and remit taxes.
- codehawke 5y ago
  Yeah, it sucks. However, not all goods, not all states even have an existence of a nexus. Virginia specifically exempts sales taxes of digital products delivered electronically, such as software, downloaded music, ringtones, and reading materials. The basic rule for collecting sales tax from online sales is: If your business has a physical presence, or “nexus”, in a state, you must collect applicable sales taxes from online customers in that state. If you do not have a physical presence, you generally do not have to collect sales tax for online sales. In the court ruling that allowed this, it was determined that Wayfair did have a nexus in those states. Not all businesses operate that way and there are a lot of gray areas.
  - tzs 5y ago
    > If you do not have a physical presence, you generally do not have to collect sales tax for online sales. That was how it stood before the Wayfair ruling. Under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) and others, the Court had ruled that states did not have the power to force out of state sellers to collect tax for remote sales unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. Wayfair overruled Quill. The Court created a new kind of nexus, an "economic" nexus, and ruled that an economic nexus was sufficient to allow states to force out of state sellers to collect. Merely selling a sufficient volume into a state is sufficient to create an economic nexus. They didn't give any hard and fast rule for deciding what is a sufficient volume, but the state involved in the Wayfair case, South Dakota, was trying to charge tax on any out of state seller that had more than $100 000/year in sales or more than 200 sales per year in South Dakota so we know that is on the "sufficient volume" side of things. The rule for online sales tax in the US is now this: 1. If you sell online to customers in state X, you need to look up that state's economic nexus law to see what their threshold is. Here's a good place for this [1]. 2. If your sales volume is not under the threshold, you need to check to see if that state exempts your particular product or service. If you hit the threshold and there is no exemption, welcome to hell. [1] https://www.avalara.com/us/en/learn/guides/state-by-state-guide-economic-nexus-laws.html https://www.avalara.com/us/en/learn/guides/state-by-state-gu...

by xxpor 5y ago

mywittyname 5y ago

Probably not to enforce standards, but they certainly have the power to create standards and incentivize their use. Much in the same way they can't control speed limits on national highways or the drinking age in various states, yet these laws are largely uniform across the country.

xxpor 5y ago
Those rules have to be on a funding source that's plausibly related and it has to be non-coercive. I'm struggling to think of a relevant funding source here.
- kelnos 5y ago
  > Those rules have to be on a funding source that's plausibly related and it has to be non-coercive. That seems to not be the case in practice. Highway funding is dependent on states setting a legal drinking age no lower than 21. Those two things are not plausibly related. And it's definitely coercive.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - xxpor 5y ago
    The two are completely plausibly related. Drinking age has a direct affect on the amount of drunk driving on roads and therefore the safety of them. The main group behind the push to 21 was Mothers Against Drunk Driving. In fact, the Supreme Court case about this was where they came up with the rule! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole The actual test is: The spending must promote "the general welfare." The condition must be unambiguous. The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs." The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional. The condition must not be coercive.

tzs 5y ago

It's kind of hinted at somewhere in Wayfair that this is really kind of about the defaults when Congress declines to speak. Congress has extremely broad powers to regulate interstate commerce which would let them decide if and how states can make sellers in other states collect for them. So far, Congress has declined to weigh in, and so we get the default. For some things the default is that states cannot do them unless Congress says they can. For others the default is that they can do them unless Congress says they cannot. With Congress remaining silent, it is up to the courts to figure out what the default is for a given thing. Wayfair is essentially saying the older decisions picked the wrong default.

ploffmaxys 5y ago
Sorry Ot and won't sound offensive, but i am reading each 'commerce' interpreted with 'ads' -so my two cents... (-; comic #646 are you in a partisan state ?: > //abload.de/img/646_en_areyouinapartisxjts.png
frankfrankfrank 5y ago
Although your belief is a common one even at the highest levels, reality is that Art. 1, §8, cl. 2 is not actually as broad a power as is believed and/or imagined. People are reading something into that clause that did not exist when it was written, nor should it exist today. It is a function of the misunderstanding of what "regulate" means as it is and was meant, rather than what today's manipulators or "designing men" as Andrew Jackson called them, intend to imprint on it. When written, "regulate" did not mean control by authoritarian and dictatorial means, absent of checks and balances and controls on power as it is implied today, i.e., "we {insert unelected bureaucratic authoritarian agency} decree by regulation that you may not do this thing or that you have to do this thing." What "regulate" meant when written was to order and bring into purpose suited structure, to bring into a regular state, opposed to an irregular state. There was no overt or hidden or implied sense of manipulation and control implied, it was a description of state, not action. It is something that is to a large extend willingly overlooked by those who are authoritarian minded, but this natural entropy of language/meaning and even often deliberate and intentional manipulation of language and words (see today's public dialogue and clear and intentional manipulation of language, i.e., you can say some things and the meaning and use of other things is imposed or assaulted), causes excessive amounts of problems. A good example of this kind of change, is the word matrix; that means a pattern of lines or marks, usually in a uniform layout, which used to mean nothing more than a female breeding animal since time before records and well into the 18th century, including even today in niche agricultural circles. The connection to the breeding female coming from the sense that a mathematical matrix is a component into which quantities can be set, or bred into. Congress does not technically have the right to control commerce, let alone trade, but it does have the power to set commerce into and orderly, or regular state; opposed to an irregular state, i.e., into a wanton and unpredictable state. That does not include using its powers to change or manipulate it with objectives or outcomes in mind. But regardless of what I say or even the founders meant, the great powers of human hive-mindedness and whoever can control it will ultimately determine the outcome and impacts. We are rapidly approaching a state where everything and anything in the Constitution is essentially put through an authoritarianism conversion where everything is interpreted as meaning centralized control and power, while always and relentlessly stripping individuals of power and control over their own lives and freedoms … all by changing language, which is precisely why certain groups are so focused on changing the language, because if you change the meaning of freedom to slavery, then you are halfway to 1984.

bsimpson 5y ago

TIL states can now force out-of-state companies to collect and remit taxes.

codehawke 5y ago
Yeah, it sucks. However, not all goods, not all states even have an existence of a nexus. Virginia specifically exempts sales taxes of digital products delivered electronically, such as software, downloaded music, ringtones, and reading materials. The basic rule for collecting sales tax from online sales is: If your business has a physical presence, or “nexus”, in a state, you must collect applicable sales taxes from online customers in that state. If you do not have a physical presence, you generally do not have to collect sales tax for online sales. In the court ruling that allowed this, it was determined that Wayfair did have a nexus in those states. Not all businesses operate that way and there are a lot of gray areas.
- tzs 5y ago
  > If you do not have a physical presence, you generally do not have to collect sales tax for online sales. That was how it stood before the Wayfair ruling. Under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) and others, the Court had ruled that states did not have the power to force out of state sellers to collect tax for remote sales unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. Wayfair overruled Quill. The Court created a new kind of nexus, an "economic" nexus, and ruled that an economic nexus was sufficient to allow states to force out of state sellers to collect. Merely selling a sufficient volume into a state is sufficient to create an economic nexus. They didn't give any hard and fast rule for deciding what is a sufficient volume, but the state involved in the Wayfair case, South Dakota, was trying to charge tax on any out of state seller that had more than $100 000/year in sales or more than 200 sales per year in South Dakota so we know that is on the "sufficient volume" side of things. The rule for online sales tax in the US is now this: 1. If you sell online to customers in state X, you need to look up that state's economic nexus law to see what their threshold is. Here's a good place for this [1]. 2. If your sales volume is not under the threshold, you need to check to see if that state exempts your particular product or service. If you hit the threshold and there is no exemption, welcome to hell. [1] https://www.avalara.com/us/en/learn/guides/state-by-state-guide-economic-nexus-laws.html https://www.avalara.com/us/en/learn/guides/state-by-state-gu...