3 ms·

I mean, according to the Supreme Court you can squint your way into justifying almost anything using the commerce clause.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Sure, but that's the point. The reinterpretation of the commerce clause circa the Great Depression seems (to my not-a-lawyer eyes) to imply that if these border stops are going to raise prices in Oklahoma, the Executive is within its purview to tell the Governor to give his state troopers something else to do. My gut says that Abbott knows this, but he just needs to string the legal process out 'til election day so he doesn't care.
- gowld 5y ago
  It's quite a stretch to suggest that (interstate/international) Commerce clause doesn't grant the Federal gvernment the power to regulate commercial trucks crossing state and Federal borders. Oklahoma prices don't matter for this.
ThunderSizzle 5y ago
The existence of a person may have a potential affect of some degree on interstate commerce, and therefore can be regulated in entirety under the commerce Claude. That is the reasoning behind the affordable health care act on existing without government mandated levels of health insurance e. Your existence as a human affects commerce, and therefore is penalizable. And the stupid 16th amendment. That's caused just as many problems as the commerce clause.
- 8note 5y ago
  Overall the 16th sounds pretty perfect? Ability to have income taxes, without the states objecting? Or is your criticism that some states should pay more income tax than others?
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > Your existence as a human affects commerce, and therefore is penalizable. Your existence can be taxed directly under the original constitution; that doesn't need the reinterpreted commerce clause.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    Why was I downvoted? The text of the sixteenth amendment makes this obvious: > The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. That qualifier -- "without apportionment among the states" -- allows income taxes that aren't head taxes. Head taxes were already allowed. Nothing to do with any interpretation of the commerce clause.
8note 5y ago
Inspecting incoming vehicles sounds a lot like the job of customs to me, so you don't have to squint very hard
- nomel 5y ago
  Does a state have no control of its international borders, especially if it can be proved that customs is performing insufficient inspections? I would imagine Texas could claim that they have to pay for these people, to some extent.
  - gowld 5y ago
    > Does a state have no control of its international borders. Generally, no, and not in usurpation of Federal law. That's what the Commerce Clause literally says -- regulating foreign trade is a Federal role. They or Congress can sue the Federal executive in Federal court.
    - nomel 5y ago
      > can sue the Federal executive in Federal court. How does it work the other way around? Does the federal court sue Texas?
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Generally, no. "... and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." This plus the 10th amendment makes the division of responsibility (and authority) pretty clear. If the federal government is doing a poor job, the remedy is to vote the bastards out, not subsume a federal obligation. This was made even clearer after the Civil War, because States had attempted to use such authority to disregard federal law regarding anti-foreign-competition tariffs.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    No. But there are some complex laws about motor carrier safety, etc. Ultimately Texas benefits greatly from Mexican trade, so even by the dim bulb standard set by modern Texan officials, this is a really stupid measure.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I mean, according to the Supreme Court you can squint your way into justifying almost anything using the commerce clause. Yeah, but actual cross-border trade being an exclusive federal authority isn't one of the squinty bits.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Sure, but that's the point. The reinterpretation of the commerce clause circa the Great Depression seems (to my not-a-lawyer eyes) to imply that if these border stops are going to raise prices in Oklahoma, the Executive is within its purview to tell the Governor to give his state troopers something else to do. My gut says that Abbott knows this, but he just needs to string the legal process out 'til election day so he doesn't care.

gowld 5y ago
It's quite a stretch to suggest that (interstate/international) Commerce clause doesn't grant the Federal gvernment the power to regulate commercial trucks crossing state and Federal borders. Oklahoma prices don't matter for this.

ThunderSizzle 5y ago

The existence of a person may have a potential affect of some degree on interstate commerce, and therefore can be regulated in entirety under the commerce Claude. That is the reasoning behind the affordable health care act on existing without government mandated levels of health insurance e. Your existence as a human affects commerce, and therefore is penalizable. And the stupid 16th amendment. That's caused just as many problems as the commerce clause.

8note 5y ago
Overall the 16th sounds pretty perfect? Ability to have income taxes, without the states objecting? Or is your criticism that some states should pay more income tax than others?
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> Your existence as a human affects commerce, and therefore is penalizable. Your existence can be taxed directly under the original constitution; that doesn't need the reinterpreted commerce clause.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Why was I downvoted? The text of the sixteenth amendment makes this obvious: > The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. That qualifier -- "without apportionment among the states" -- allows income taxes that aren't head taxes. Head taxes were already allowed. Nothing to do with any interpretation of the commerce clause.

8note 5y ago

Inspecting incoming vehicles sounds a lot like the job of customs to me, so you don't have to squint very hard

nomel 5y ago
Does a state have no control of its international borders, especially if it can be proved that customs is performing insufficient inspections? I would imagine Texas could claim that they have to pay for these people, to some extent.
- gowld 5y ago
  > Does a state have no control of its international borders. Generally, no, and not in usurpation of Federal law. That's what the Commerce Clause literally says -- regulating foreign trade is a Federal role. They or Congress can sue the Federal executive in Federal court.
  - nomel 5y ago
    > can sue the Federal executive in Federal court. How does it work the other way around? Does the federal court sue Texas?
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Generally, no. "... and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." This plus the 10th amendment makes the division of responsibility (and authority) pretty clear. If the federal government is doing a poor job, the remedy is to vote the bastards out, not subsume a federal obligation. This was made even clearer after the Civil War, because States had attempted to use such authority to disregard federal law regarding anti-foreign-competition tariffs.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  No. But there are some complex laws about motor carrier safety, etc. Ultimately Texas benefits greatly from Mexican trade, so even by the dim bulb standard set by modern Texan officials, this is a really stupid measure.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I mean, according to the Supreme Court you can squint your way into justifying almost anything using the commerce clause. Yeah, but actual cross-border trade being an exclusive federal authority isn't one of the squinty bits.