5 ms·

Gender politics aside… is this legal (in the eyes of the US federal govt) for the state of California to do? Is it precedented for one state to ban state-funded

Gender politics aside… is this legal (in the eyes of the US federal govt) for the state of California to do? Is it precedented for one state to ban state-funded interaction with a fellow state for some cause?

literallyaduck 5y ago
"No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another." Some irrelevant documentation left by legacy government programmers.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  How much of this now-banned travel is by ship? It's not like the founders didn't know about overland travel to make sure it was included if they wanted to. The way the courts have interpreted it matters. Tossing it out without that context is meaningless.
  - literallyaduck 5y ago
    Ports include airports.
    - mkr-hn 5y ago
      If only the constitution created a branch of government charged with interpreting the constitution. They would have produced a body of rulings over the years that help guide us in situations like that. Oh...wait. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/758 https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte... So it seems to be relevant to the federal government trying to favor one state over another in taxation. Someone could sue over this and establish new precedent on this subject, but it doesn't seem relevant right now.
      - nomoreplease 5y ago
        It’s not just about taxation. The port preference could apply, but I think it’s focusing on the federal government not state-to-state Your link discusses this near the bottom
SllX 5y ago
Maybe one of those 17 would have standing to sue California; but I don’t think they’re too beat up about California government officials not coming to pay them a visit. In the end, it is California isolating itself, not anyone else.
secabeen 5y ago
I'm not a constitutional law expert, but based on current precedent on money being a form of speech, this would probably fall under that. The state isn't banning interaction with or travel to those states, it's just saying that it won't support those states by paying for travel there. Employees can travel there if they wish by spending their own money. If it's a work related trip, California will still pay their salary during the time they are in the banned state, I believe.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Yes and here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clau... California is pretending they're somehow more equal than other states. Kind a defeats the purpose of being a "United" nation if other states can impose policies on other states because they think they're offensive and not as enlightened as themselves.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  This seems to prevent states from legislating the kind of discrimination that caused this ban in the first place.
mkr-hn 5y ago
States paying for travel to states that don't respect equal protection under the law might not be legal. This is the kind of question opened by the Supreme Court ruling that the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ employees. It's why we have courts.
bbatha 5y ago
Yes. This doesn’t ban travel outright; just the use of state funds for state employees to travel. The state of California is not stopping LAX to Birmingham flights for example which would be unconstitutional. Due to the tenth amendment states have wide latitude on how to use their money.
ethagknight 5y ago
My main thought here is that this seems like a terrible precedent and a dangerous path (again, divorce the ban from the hot button topic). Since they shouldn't like California's apparently unprecedented policy against them, it would be commensurate for North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas to collectively enact a much more severe counter-ban on exports and interstate trade involving anything funded by state funds heading to California, thereby dividing the nation clean in half (but for a little interstateless section of Nebraska) and cutting off California from major sources of fuel and farming, while this whole issues gets sorted out in court. Is the ban illegal? Absolutely, but go ahead, we'll wait, this might take a few years to sort out in various courts, we are heavily restricting natural gas and oil flows in the meantime. Set a precedent against one large state attempting to strong arm other smaller states into obeying its orders. Simply stating "its only state employee travel, not that big of a deal" is not constructive to what clearly is a first step of many down a path of weakening US interstate commerce.

literallyaduck 5y ago

"No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another." Some irrelevant documentation left by legacy government programmers.

mkr-hn 5y ago
How much of this now-banned travel is by ship? It's not like the founders didn't know about overland travel to make sure it was included if they wanted to. The way the courts have interpreted it matters. Tossing it out without that context is meaningless.
- literallyaduck 5y ago
  Ports include airports.
  - mkr-hn 5y ago
    If only the constitution created a branch of government charged with interpreting the constitution. They would have produced a body of rulings over the years that help guide us in situations like that. Oh...wait. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/758 https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte... So it seems to be relevant to the federal government trying to favor one state over another in taxation. Someone could sue over this and establish new precedent on this subject, but it doesn't seem relevant right now.
    - nomoreplease 5y ago
      It’s not just about taxation. The port preference could apply, but I think it’s focusing on the federal government not state-to-state Your link discusses this near the bottom

SllX 5y ago

Maybe one of those 17 would have standing to sue California; but I don’t think they’re too beat up about California government officials not coming to pay them a visit. In the end, it is California isolating itself, not anyone else.

secabeen 5y ago

I'm not a constitutional law expert, but based on current precedent on money being a form of speech, this would probably fall under that. The state isn't banning interaction with or travel to those states, it's just saying that it won't support those states by paying for travel there. Employees can travel there if they wish by spending their own money. If it's a work related trip, California will still pay their salary during the time they are in the banned state, I believe.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

Yes and here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clau... California is pretending they're somehow more equal than other states. Kind a defeats the purpose of being a "United" nation if other states can impose policies on other states because they think they're offensive and not as enlightened as themselves.

mkr-hn 5y ago
This seems to prevent states from legislating the kind of discrimination that caused this ban in the first place.

mkr-hn 5y ago

States paying for travel to states that don't respect equal protection under the law might not be legal. This is the kind of question opened by the Supreme Court ruling that the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ employees. It's why we have courts.

bbatha 5y ago

Yes. This doesn’t ban travel outright; just the use of state funds for state employees to travel. The state of California is not stopping LAX to Birmingham flights for example which would be unconstitutional. Due to the tenth amendment states have wide latitude on how to use their money.

ethagknight 5y ago

My main thought here is that this seems like a terrible precedent and a dangerous path (again, divorce the ban from the hot button topic). Since they shouldn't like California's apparently unprecedented policy against them, it would be commensurate for North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas to collectively enact a much more severe counter-ban on exports and interstate trade involving anything funded by state funds heading to California, thereby dividing the nation clean in half (but for a little interstateless section of Nebraska) and cutting off California from major sources of fuel and farming, while this whole issues gets sorted out in court. Is the ban illegal? Absolutely, but go ahead, we'll wait, this might take a few years to sort out in various courts, we are heavily restricting natural gas and oil flows in the meantime. Set a precedent against one large state attempting to strong arm other smaller states into obeying its orders. Simply stating "its only state employee travel, not that big of a deal" is not constructive to what clearly is a first step of many down a path of weakening US interstate commerce.