3 ms·

Congress has the enumerated right to regulate commerce. This, being an executive order, is not an act of Congress. Consider the agencies you may be thinking of:

Congress has the enumerated right to regulate commerce. This, being an executive order, is not an act of Congress. Consider the agencies you may be thinking of: FDA, FTC, FCC, etc. All have actual laws defining their scope. This is an overreach of the executive.

jprete 3y ago
Product safety for consumer products seems to be directly in the FTC's domain.
- da_chicken 3y ago
  No, that would be the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
da_chicken 3y ago
Sure, but it's not like we're waiting for Congress to do that. It's not like the Department of Commerce hasn't been created, or that the Secretary of Commerce doesn't exist in the President's cabinet. The quasi-legislative agencies are not the sole source of regulation in the United States. Executive orders are also useful as temporary legal framework while Congress works on broader laws. As they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Even if they don't carry the force of law to any relevant quasi-legislative officers, they give businesses a framework to work within while Congress works.
hellojesus 3y ago
Congress can only regulate commerce between states. If someone trained a model completely in state and then sold it to folks within the state, the commerce clause wouldn't apply. *Of course, you have to make sure no internet traverses state lines. Better to keep it off the web to be safe.
- anamax 3y ago
  Growing wheat on your own land for your own use all within one state is regulated as interstate commerce because you didn't buy wheat produced in another state. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 The explanation is: "Congress may use its Commerce Power to regulate or prohibit activities provided the economic effects of such activities are substantial." Note that "substantial" is not wrt what an individual does but "what if everyone did that?"
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Yes. I'm quite familiar with this blantant misinterpretation of the Constitution. The logic is flawed at its core. What if my friend tells me a joke? I may not go to pay to see a comdeian. That would have nth order effects on commerce as a whole. Honestly, Filburn v. Whitaker was my biggest wake up call that the US is a complete farce with absolutely corrupt checks and balances. Couple that with other outcomes like Hylton v. United States, where the SC argued that a clear direct tax was actually a usage tax and not subject to apportionment. Plenty of examples of SCOTUS relabeling an activity to say it's fine when it's in clear violation of the Constitution.

jprete 3y ago

Product safety for consumer products seems to be directly in the FTC's domain.

da_chicken 3y ago
No, that would be the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

da_chicken 3y ago

Sure, but it's not like we're waiting for Congress to do that. It's not like the Department of Commerce hasn't been created, or that the Secretary of Commerce doesn't exist in the President's cabinet. The quasi-legislative agencies are not the sole source of regulation in the United States. Executive orders are also useful as temporary legal framework while Congress works on broader laws. As they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Even if they don't carry the force of law to any relevant quasi-legislative officers, they give businesses a framework to work within while Congress works.

hellojesus 3y ago

Congress can only regulate commerce between states. If someone trained a model completely in state and then sold it to folks within the state, the commerce clause wouldn't apply. *Of course, you have to make sure no internet traverses state lines. Better to keep it off the web to be safe.

anamax 3y ago
Growing wheat on your own land for your own use all within one state is regulated as interstate commerce because you didn't buy wheat produced in another state. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 The explanation is: "Congress may use its Commerce Power to regulate or prohibit activities provided the economic effects of such activities are substantial." Note that "substantial" is not wrt what an individual does but "what if everyone did that?"
- hellojesus 3y ago
  Yes. I'm quite familiar with this blantant misinterpretation of the Constitution. The logic is flawed at its core. What if my friend tells me a joke? I may not go to pay to see a comdeian. That would have nth order effects on commerce as a whole. Honestly, Filburn v. Whitaker was my biggest wake up call that the US is a complete farce with absolutely corrupt checks and balances. Couple that with other outcomes like Hylton v. United States, where the SC argued that a clear direct tax was actually a usage tax and not subject to apportionment. Plenty of examples of SCOTUS relabeling an activity to say it's fine when it's in clear violation of the Constitution.