4 ms·

What exactly is your issue with this, as a textualist? >[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several

What exactly is your issue with this, as a textualist? >[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; . . . This is foreign commerce. It falls under the explicit jurisdiction of Congress.

mrcwinn 2y ago
Well gosh, that sentence makes it seems like Congress could do anything! However, this case is about something else. The opinion states that there is a first amendment interest, but that interest is secondary to a compelling national security interest that, in the court’s view, is valid. That may or may not be correct - but it is a subjective interpretation.
- fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
  >that sentence makes it seems like Congress could do anything! Yeah, it's the perhaps most powerful clause in the constitution. A large number of laws are formed like "[actual law ...] in commerce." That is the hook needed for a lot of laws to be constitutional. Technically those laws only apply to interstate or international commerce. There are even supreme court cases discussing this: >Congress uses different modifiers to the word “commerce” in the design and enactment of its statutes. The phrase “affecting commerce” indicates Congress’ intent to regulate to the outer limits of its authority under the Commerce Clause. [...] Considering the usual meaning of the word “involving,” and the pro-arbitration purposes of the FAA, Allied-Bruce held the “word ‘involving,’ like ‘affecting,’ signals an intent to exercise Congress’ commerce power to the full.” Ibid. Unlike those phrases, however, the general words “in commerce” and the specific phrase “engaged in commerce” are understood to have a more limited reach. In Allied-Bruce itself the Court said the words “in commerce” are “oftenfound words of art” [...] The Court’s reluctance to accept contentions that Congress used the words “in commerce” or “engaged in commerce” to regulate to the full extent of its commerce power rests on sound foundation, as it affords objective and consistent significance to the meaning of the words Congress uses when it defines the reach of a statute.[0] [0] Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/105/case.pdf https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/105/case.pdf
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > Yeah, it's the perhaps most powerful clause in the constitution. Only because the Court wants it to be, so they can play Calvinball. Marijuana grown, sold, and consumed entirely within one state? Still interstate commerce! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      The original sin was Wickard, which found a farmer “growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm” was subject to interstate commerce “reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause” [1]. The court even noted that the farmer’s “relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself,” ruling that “the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers” acting as he did would. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        This seems true… many many thousands of farmers combined consuming their own self grown wheat, would produce noticeable effects on interstate commerce. Specifically wheat markets, futures, etc…
        quesera 2y ago
        The problem is that, by extension, the clause can be applied to literally anything, if the Court finds it useful to do so.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Maybe that is what the original writers intended…? To act as a catch all override clause to allow for federal intervention anywhere really important.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
This is about as much foreign commerce as it is me buying a Xiaomi phone. I know there's court precedent, but corporations aren't people. It's yet another Chinese platform that Americans use to communicate with other western companies.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > corporations aren't people Corporate personhood is irrelevant to this case.
  - parineum 2y ago
    > > corporations aren't people > Corporate personhood is irrelevant to this case. Further more, "Corporations are people" implying corporations have rights isn't related to corporate personhood and is based on a (often deliberate by opposing politicians) misinterpretation of the phrase, as spoken by Mitt Romney. What Romney was saying and what is true when he said "Corporations are people" is confusing because people interpret it as "Corporations are persons" which is not what he, or the case law he was referring to implied. The singular of the phrase is much more clear, a corporation is people. The whole case was about a group of people pooling their funds to make a movie about Hilary Clinton being bad and the court found that the people still had free speech rights when acting through a corporation to pool their funds and so political donation limits didn't apply as long as no political campaign was involved. Hence, Super PACs having to say that the campaigns their supporting aren't involved with the campaigns. It's actually an incredibly complicated and nuanced situation and the decision is equally so.
    - LordGronk 2y ago
      Damn and here I was looking forward to the day when I could finally marry Lockheed Martin
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > I was looking forward to the day when I could finally marry Lockheed Martin You can’t marry a child or your cousin (in most states), that doesn’t mean they aren’t people.
Imnimo 2y ago
Whether Congress has jurisdiction here is not at issue. The court is deciding a different question, which is whether the ban would violate the first amendment. We look at their ruling: >We granted certiorari to decide whether the Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.
- Aunche 2y ago
  What does this have to do with the First Amendment? How would this be different from an antitrust ruling that requires Alphabet to divest Youtube, but Alphabet decides to shut down Youtube instead?
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    The Supreme Court can only rule on cases brought to it. And in those cases, they are ruling on specific points of law which one party believes that a lower court misapplied. In this case, the parties asked the Court specifically to review whether a TikTok forced divestiture (not a ban, a forced sale) violated the First Amendment.
    - titanomachy 2y ago
      > The Supreme Court can only rule on cases brought to it. That might be technically true, but if (1) you're the lawyer representing a party in an important case, (2) you've already appealed that case up to the highest appelate court and lost, and (3) you think there's any chance that the Supreme Court might change the ruling in your favor, then wouldn't it basically be professional malpractice to not petition for certiorari? Of course, they only accept a tiny percentage of the petitions they receive.
  - nullifidian 2y ago
    >What does this have to do with the First Amendment? Because obviously changing the owner-editor of a media outlet has everything to do with their editorial policy. The SCOTUS just said that censorship is ok (and forcing the change of the editor is censorship, there is no doubt about it), as long as it's against another state's editorial preferences potentially having a significant audience in the country.

mrcwinn 2y ago

Well gosh, that sentence makes it seems like Congress could do anything! However, this case is about something else. The opinion states that there is a first amendment interest, but that interest is secondary to a compelling national security interest that, in the court’s view, is valid. That may or may not be correct - but it is a subjective interpretation.

fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
>that sentence makes it seems like Congress could do anything! Yeah, it's the perhaps most powerful clause in the constitution. A large number of laws are formed like "[actual law ...] in commerce." That is the hook needed for a lot of laws to be constitutional. Technically those laws only apply to interstate or international commerce. There are even supreme court cases discussing this: >Congress uses different modifiers to the word “commerce” in the design and enactment of its statutes. The phrase “affecting commerce” indicates Congress’ intent to regulate to the outer limits of its authority under the Commerce Clause. [...] Considering the usual meaning of the word “involving,” and the pro-arbitration purposes of the FAA, Allied-Bruce held the “word ‘involving,’ like ‘affecting,’ signals an intent to exercise Congress’ commerce power to the full.” Ibid. Unlike those phrases, however, the general words “in commerce” and the specific phrase “engaged in commerce” are understood to have a more limited reach. In Allied-Bruce itself the Court said the words “in commerce” are “oftenfound words of art” [...] The Court’s reluctance to accept contentions that Congress used the words “in commerce” or “engaged in commerce” to regulate to the full extent of its commerce power rests on sound foundation, as it affords objective and consistent significance to the meaning of the words Congress uses when it defines the reach of a statute.[0] [0] Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/105/case.pdf https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/105/case.pdf
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Yeah, it's the perhaps most powerful clause in the constitution. Only because the Court wants it to be, so they can play Calvinball. Marijuana grown, sold, and consumed entirely within one state? Still interstate commerce! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    The original sin was Wickard, which found a farmer “growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm” was subject to interstate commerce “reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause” [1]. The court even noted that the farmer’s “relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself,” ruling that “the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers” acting as he did would. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      This seems true… many many thousands of farmers combined consuming their own self grown wheat, would produce noticeable effects on interstate commerce. Specifically wheat markets, futures, etc…
      - quesera 2y ago
        The problem is that, by extension, the clause can be applied to literally anything, if the Court finds it useful to do so.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Maybe that is what the original writers intended…? To act as a catch all override clause to allow for federal intervention anywhere really important.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

This is about as much foreign commerce as it is me buying a Xiaomi phone. I know there's court precedent, but corporations aren't people. It's yet another Chinese platform that Americans use to communicate with other western companies.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> corporations aren't people Corporate personhood is irrelevant to this case.
- parineum 2y ago
  > > corporations aren't people > Corporate personhood is irrelevant to this case. Further more, "Corporations are people" implying corporations have rights isn't related to corporate personhood and is based on a (often deliberate by opposing politicians) misinterpretation of the phrase, as spoken by Mitt Romney. What Romney was saying and what is true when he said "Corporations are people" is confusing because people interpret it as "Corporations are persons" which is not what he, or the case law he was referring to implied. The singular of the phrase is much more clear, a corporation is people. The whole case was about a group of people pooling their funds to make a movie about Hilary Clinton being bad and the court found that the people still had free speech rights when acting through a corporation to pool their funds and so political donation limits didn't apply as long as no political campaign was involved. Hence, Super PACs having to say that the campaigns their supporting aren't involved with the campaigns. It's actually an incredibly complicated and nuanced situation and the decision is equally so.
  - LordGronk 2y ago
    Damn and here I was looking forward to the day when I could finally marry Lockheed Martin
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > I was looking forward to the day when I could finally marry Lockheed Martin You can’t marry a child or your cousin (in most states), that doesn’t mean they aren’t people.

Imnimo 2y ago

Whether Congress has jurisdiction here is not at issue. The court is deciding a different question, which is whether the ban would violate the first amendment. We look at their ruling: >We granted certiorari to decide whether the Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.

Aunche 2y ago
What does this have to do with the First Amendment? How would this be different from an antitrust ruling that requires Alphabet to divest Youtube, but Alphabet decides to shut down Youtube instead?
- psunavy03 2y ago
  The Supreme Court can only rule on cases brought to it. And in those cases, they are ruling on specific points of law which one party believes that a lower court misapplied. In this case, the parties asked the Court specifically to review whether a TikTok forced divestiture (not a ban, a forced sale) violated the First Amendment.
  - titanomachy 2y ago
    > The Supreme Court can only rule on cases brought to it. That might be technically true, but if (1) you're the lawyer representing a party in an important case, (2) you've already appealed that case up to the highest appelate court and lost, and (3) you think there's any chance that the Supreme Court might change the ruling in your favor, then wouldn't it basically be professional malpractice to not petition for certiorari? Of course, they only accept a tiny percentage of the petitions they receive.
- nullifidian 2y ago
  >What does this have to do with the First Amendment? Because obviously changing the owner-editor of a media outlet has everything to do with their editorial policy. The SCOTUS just said that censorship is ok (and forcing the change of the editor is censorship, there is no doubt about it), as long as it's against another state's editorial preferences potentially having a significant audience in the country.