3 ms·

> that states can regulate purely intrastate Commerce is not subject to serious dispute. > The argument is that the interstate commerce clause itself prohibits

> that states can regulate purely intrastate Commerce is not subject to serious dispute. > The argument is that the interstate commerce clause itself prohibits many state regulations of interstate commerce If you argue that states have the right to regulate interstate commerce AND the congress can pass a bill in regards to abortion because doing so is in the interest of interstate commerce. Then why can't a state pass a law that allows fathers of children that were aborted in another state to sue the abortion provider that did the procedure? On the other hand what if we agreed that having an abortion isn't a matter of interstate commerce, then congress would not have the authority to regulate it nationally and states wouldn't be able to do so either.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> If you argue that states have the right to regulate interstate commerce States have the power to regulate intrastate commerce within their own state. They have very limited power with regard to interstate commerce (limited, very roughly, to nondiscriminatory regulation of transactions within the state which impact interstate commerce and where such regulation also is not in conflict with federal regulation of interstate commerce), because interstate commerce is expressly Constitutionally a federal function, and state action in that domain otherwise interferes with that federal function. A more expansive view of the federal power here narrows, rather than expands, the state power.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Just weird that we apparently got it wrong for 150+ years before Roosevelt came along to set everyone straight. The law isn't determined on a factual, textual or even a logical basis. Gitmo, civil asset forfeiture, mass surveillance, dread scott, alien and sedition, japanese american internment camps, executive order 6102, roe. It's a political system and it reflects the political thinking at the time. The consensus you outline here is a bad idea, full of logical leaps, and it will lead to ruin, but I guess it will take the other guys getting into power to prove that to some people. You are talking about how things are, I'm trying to say that they could be something else.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> If you argue that states have the right to regulate interstate commerce States have the power to regulate intrastate commerce within their own state. They have very limited power with regard to interstate commerce (limited, very roughly, to nondiscriminatory regulation of transactions within the state which impact interstate commerce and where such regulation also is not in conflict with federal regulation of interstate commerce), because interstate commerce is expressly Constitutionally a federal function, and state action in that domain otherwise interferes with that federal function. A more expansive view of the federal power here narrows, rather than expands, the state power.

willcipriano 4y ago
Just weird that we apparently got it wrong for 150+ years before Roosevelt came along to set everyone straight. The law isn't determined on a factual, textual or even a logical basis. Gitmo, civil asset forfeiture, mass surveillance, dread scott, alien and sedition, japanese american internment camps, executive order 6102, roe. It's a political system and it reflects the political thinking at the time. The consensus you outline here is a bad idea, full of logical leaps, and it will lead to ruin, but I guess it will take the other guys getting into power to prove that to some people. You are talking about how things are, I'm trying to say that they could be something else.