4 ms·
What's perplexing is why they don't apply this to the rest of the federal powers. Overturn Wickard v Filburn and cut it at the root. The federal government ha
by notch656a 4y ago
What's perplexing is why they don't apply this to the rest of the federal powers. Overturn Wickard v Filburn and cut it at the root. The federal government has no legitimacy to regulate intrastate trade, most gun laws, most of the civil rights act, the controlled substance act, etc. The fact that they picked abortion but not the root of anti-constitutional federal expansionism is truly baffling.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoThey decide what's in front of them. If you've got a good challenge case for Wickard v Filburn, they might hear it. But this case wasn't a case that could overturn Wickard v Filburn.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- andrew_ 4y agoAgree it was a weird hill to choose. I can see more expansionism being picked at over the next few years.
- CuriouslyC 4y agoI hope to god that regulation of interstate trade gets shot down, so California and New York can tax goods from red states into oblivion. That would be a poetic response to this egregious use of "state's rights."
- scythe 4y agoThat's not what Wickard v. Filburn was about. Wickard held that regulation of individual behavior could be legislated under the Interstate Commerce Clause insofar as that individual behavior had a "rational basis" effect on the interstate market for a commodity. This effectively allowed Congress to regulate most aspects of our lives under the auspices of the power to regulate interstate commerce.
- ryan93 4y agoConstitution prohibits it unless authorized by the US congress.
- notch656a 4y agoConstitution aside: the gangs and cartels will be licking their lips at the smuggling opportunities the second the gavel hits. You will hand them one of the biggest gifts since the war on drugs.
- infamouscow 4y ago> I hope to god that regulation of interstate trade gets shot down, so California and New York can tax goods from red states into oblivion. Punishing the poor and economically disadvantaged in red and blue states as political reprisal is the stupidest idea I've read all day. What are you accomplishing besides making yourself feel good at the literal expense of the most vulnerable?
- CuriouslyC 4y agoThis is the most strawman argument I've seen all day. Nothing from red states is irreplaceable, and when people replace red state goods with blue state goods to avoid paying more, it hurts the red state companies complicit in the fucked up politics of their region as intended.
- infamouscow 4y agoYou're painting everyone located in a red state with broad strokes. What you're suggesting also affects anyone that votes blue in red states, including business owners and workers that are trying to change their state laws. Changing the law is harder when you're calling to economically punish those businesses and they have to layoff workers or close. So instead of campaigning on the weekend and persuading people to vote to change the state law, workers will be looking a new job. This maintains the status quo rather than help garner support to change it. What you're suggesting is regressive and hurts the pro-choice movement in red states.
- CuriouslyC 4y agoWhat you're saying here is that sanctions don't work, which is clearly false. I think economically strangling red states into the stone age unless they adopt a few basic liberal policies that are only opposed due to religious extremism is an entirely reasonable approach.
- disambiguation 4y agoyou realize import taxes turn into higher prices for the people buying the stuff right?
- CuriouslyC 4y agoYes. If they choose to buy "California approved" brands to get a lower price, the tax is hurting the intended person.