3 ms·

Can you help me understand? If state A decides to ban tobacco product B in their state, would that also fall under this clause, and therefore be subject to fede

by glial 1y ago

Can you help me understand? If state A decides to ban tobacco product B in their state, would that also fall under this clause, and therefore be subject to federal law on the matter?

lightedman 1y ago
Yes, and you can bet that the current admin is likely to use that to overturn things like California's ban on flavored tobacco products and similar things.
- jimt1234 1y ago
  The previous Trump administration sued California for having the audacity to create its own environmental regulations, specifically vehicle smog standards. Not sure how this all ended, but yeah, states rights, except when we don't like what other states are doing.
  - Spivak 1y ago
    Can you imagine if we actually had smart people thinking about these issues? I want to read James Madison's essay about how best to preserve individual state autonomy while avoiding the problem of large states being able to effectively write laws across their borders because of the reality of economics and national manufacturing. There's so much nuance of when each side oversteps and since everything is interstate commerce where the federal government should nonetheless be restrained. It used to be I could read supreme court opinions for this kind of sincere analysis but it seems like the time for discussions like this time is gone.
recursivecaveat 1y ago
For context, the first law to be struck down for overreaching the commerce clause since the 40s was one that prohibited the possession of a firearm within a school zone. All that was necessary to amend the law was to add a rider that it was only illegal if the gun had been bought/sold across state or international lines at some point. The commerce clause is interpreted extremely broadly. It's basically unfixable though, because so many decades of laws rely on it, and passing a constitutional amendment to just directly grant the federal government a bunch of powers, even ones it already has, is politically impossible. (indeed passing any non-trivial amendment at all is very unlikely for the foreseeable future)

by glial 1y ago

Can you help me understand? If state A decides to ban tobacco product B in their state, would that also fall under this clause, and therefore be subject to federal law on the matter?

lightedman 1y ago

Yes, and you can bet that the current admin is likely to use that to overturn things like California's ban on flavored tobacco products and similar things.

jimt1234 1y ago
The previous Trump administration sued California for having the audacity to create its own environmental regulations, specifically vehicle smog standards. Not sure how this all ended, but yeah, states rights, except when we don't like what other states are doing.
- Spivak 1y ago
  Can you imagine if we actually had smart people thinking about these issues? I want to read James Madison's essay about how best to preserve individual state autonomy while avoiding the problem of large states being able to effectively write laws across their borders because of the reality of economics and national manufacturing. There's so much nuance of when each side oversteps and since everything is interstate commerce where the federal government should nonetheless be restrained. It used to be I could read supreme court opinions for this kind of sincere analysis but it seems like the time for discussions like this time is gone.

recursivecaveat 1y ago

For context, the first law to be struck down for overreaching the commerce clause since the 40s was one that prohibited the possession of a firearm within a school zone. All that was necessary to amend the law was to add a rider that it was only illegal if the gun had been bought/sold across state or international lines at some point. The commerce clause is interpreted extremely broadly. It's basically unfixable though, because so many decades of laws rely on it, and passing a constitutional amendment to just directly grant the federal government a bunch of powers, even ones it already has, is politically impossible. (indeed passing any non-trivial amendment at all is very unlikely for the foreseeable future)