4 ms·

> The interpretation of interstate commerce is obviously wrong. Eh... I mean, yes, but not in the way you want. The constitution is clear about the federal g

> The interpretation of interstate commerce is obviously wrong. Eh... I mean, yes, but not in the way you want. The constitution is clear about the federal government having the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Running a payment processor in, say, New York for customers (businesses) in California is very clearly interstate commerce. Your NY-based business is selling a service (payment processing) to another business in California. New York and California are difference states. You are engaging in commerce across state lines. There's no consistent way to interpret "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" in any meaningful way that still a) gives the federal government any control over interstate commerce; and b) prohibits the federal government from regulating this kind of interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn (which was overturned more than 25 years ago) was pretty obviously a stupid decision because there was nothing that wasn't interstate commerce under that ruling. I say it's stupid because why would the constitution give the congress the power to regulate specifically interstate commerce if it really meant they could regulate all commerce? That obvious contradiction is why it was overturned. It sounds like you're asking for a Wickard v Filburn-style decision, but in the other direction: Nothing is interstate commerce. I guess they could do that if you take the Justice Thomas approach that all the rules are made up, but then what's the point? Let's just dissolve congress and the supreme court and just have the president rule as he chooses.

omniglottal 3y ago
Such a reasonable stance to end with such outright and absolute insanity... do you WANT a dictatorship??
eadmund 3y ago
> if you take the Justice Thomas approach that all the rules are made up Why the out-of-nowhere attack on the judge who adheres most closely to the law and the Constitution? With respect to the matter at hand, I think that your analysis is correct: the federal government has the authority to prohibit a NY-based payment processor from processing certain payments in California. But it has no authority to prohibit that NY-based payment processor’s California-based subsidiary from processing those payments within California.
- objectivetruth 3y ago
  [dead]
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  >adheres most closely to the law and the Constitution That is entirely opinion.
- xcrunner529 3y ago
  [dead]
peteradio 3y ago
> Wickard v. Filburn (which was overturned more than 25 years ago) Please expand on this... Are you talking about U.S. v Lopez? Just because some limit was found on the Commerce clause did not vacate the original decision. I think the credit card fees would be subject to federal oversight but not the fundamental transaction facilitated.
- labcomputer 3y ago
  I was referring to Lopez, and I'll concede that "overturn" is probably too strong a word. But it was the first time in 60 years that SCOTUS didn't roll over when congress claimed to have authority under the commerce clause and marked the beginning of increased skepticism of commerce clause claims. Moreover, the majority in Lopez proposed a four-part test, the first of which was whether the activity being is economic in nature. Previously under Wickard v. Filburn, the standard was whether the regulated activity could substantially impact interstate commerce. To see just how absurd this is (and how Lopez changes it), consider this: Can the federal government regulate whether I ride my bike to work? The government is charged with protecting national security. And part of that is ensuring adequate supplies of raw materials needed to prosecute a war. Fossil fuels are one such necessary material. If everyone rides a bike to work, oil producers and refiners may go out of business, thus substantially impacting interstate commerce for a domain in which the federal government clearly has a legitimate interest. Therefore, under Wickard v. Filburn the federal government has clear constitutional authority to make it illegal for me to commute to work by bicycle. That's insane. And this is very analogous to what Filburn did that led to the case Wickard v. Filburn: By riding a bicycle, my impact on interstate commerce is caused by the fact that I am simply declining to participate in interstate commerce. Filburn grew wheat for his own consumption. However, under US v. Lopez my bicycle commute is a noneconomic activity, and not something that can be regulated. This removes an enormous class of activities from congress's regulatory authority. > I think the credit card fees would be subject to federal oversight but not the fundamental transaction facilitated. Sure, fine. But MasterCard won't process your payments if they can't charge you a fee for facilitating your transactions. The constitution gives congress broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. They are well within that authority to say "you may charge fees for payment services for X but not for Y".

omniglottal 3y ago

Such a reasonable stance to end with such outright and absolute insanity... do you WANT a dictatorship??

eadmund 3y ago

> if you take the Justice Thomas approach that all the rules are made up Why the out-of-nowhere attack on the judge who adheres most closely to the law and the Constitution? With respect to the matter at hand, I think that your analysis is correct: the federal government has the authority to prohibit a NY-based payment processor from processing certain payments in California. But it has no authority to prohibit that NY-based payment processor’s California-based subsidiary from processing those payments within California.

objectivetruth 3y ago
[dead]
mrguyorama 3y ago
>adheres most closely to the law and the Constitution That is entirely opinion.
xcrunner529 3y ago
[dead]

peteradio 3y ago

> Wickard v. Filburn (which was overturned more than 25 years ago) Please expand on this... Are you talking about U.S. v Lopez? Just because some limit was found on the Commerce clause did not vacate the original decision. I think the credit card fees would be subject to federal oversight but not the fundamental transaction facilitated.

labcomputer 3y ago
I was referring to Lopez, and I'll concede that "overturn" is probably too strong a word. But it was the first time in 60 years that SCOTUS didn't roll over when congress claimed to have authority under the commerce clause and marked the beginning of increased skepticism of commerce clause claims. Moreover, the majority in Lopez proposed a four-part test, the first of which was whether the activity being is economic in nature. Previously under Wickard v. Filburn, the standard was whether the regulated activity could substantially impact interstate commerce. To see just how absurd this is (and how Lopez changes it), consider this: Can the federal government regulate whether I ride my bike to work? The government is charged with protecting national security. And part of that is ensuring adequate supplies of raw materials needed to prosecute a war. Fossil fuels are one such necessary material. If everyone rides a bike to work, oil producers and refiners may go out of business, thus substantially impacting interstate commerce for a domain in which the federal government clearly has a legitimate interest. Therefore, under Wickard v. Filburn the federal government has clear constitutional authority to make it illegal for me to commute to work by bicycle. That's insane. And this is very analogous to what Filburn did that led to the case Wickard v. Filburn: By riding a bicycle, my impact on interstate commerce is caused by the fact that I am simply declining to participate in interstate commerce. Filburn grew wheat for his own consumption. However, under US v. Lopez my bicycle commute is a noneconomic activity, and not something that can be regulated. This removes an enormous class of activities from congress's regulatory authority. > I think the credit card fees would be subject to federal oversight but not the fundamental transaction facilitated. Sure, fine. But MasterCard won't process your payments if they can't charge you a fee for facilitating your transactions. The constitution gives congress broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. They are well within that authority to say "you may charge fees for payment services for X but not for Y".