3 ms·

How would that not require a Constitutional amendment?

• ceejayoz 5mo ago
  Oh no, legislators might have to do some work? We apply interstate commerce extremely broadly to all sorts of things (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich; six marijuana plants in a basement for personal consumption = interstate commerce!). Why not here? > The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown cannabis for medical purposes affects the interstate market of cannabis and the federal government may thus regulate and prohibit such consumption. I contend that cushy state/local tax breaks for datacenters affects the interstate market of datacenters and the federal government may thus regulate and prohibit such consumption.
  • twoodfin 5mo ago
    State and local tax law is not “interstate commerce”, it’s state and local tax law. The SCOTUS ruling overturning Federal intrusion into state tax law would be 9-0.
    • ceejayoz 5mo ago
      > State and local tax law is not “interstate commerce”, it’s state and local tax law. And yet, growing six marijuana plants for personal use in California (never leaving the house!) was "interstate commerce". Read the link! If that's interstate commerce, a California company building facilities in Louisiana seems like a slam dunk.