3 ms·

That's because the states had no jurisdiction over entities outside their boundaries with which to enforce tax collection. There's never been a federal bill giv

That's because the states had no jurisdiction over entities outside their boundaries with which to enforce tax collection. There's never been a federal bill giving it to them, and the federal government definitely has authority to regulate interstate commerce. On what grounds would the Supreme Court throw this out? The SC rulings on out-of-state taxes have always specifically said that Congress is free to make changes that would enable tax collection. E.g. Quill v North Dakota: > [O]ur decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve. No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions

Turing_Machine 14y ago
"the federal government definitely has authority to regulate interstate commerce" Agreed, but that's not what they're doing. They're granting authority to one state to regulate commerce in another state. They might have the authority to enact a national sales tax paid to the federal government (but then again, they might not -- note that the income tax required an actual constitutional amendment), but I don't think they can make citizens of one state subject to the tax (or other) laws of another. If they do have that power, how far does it go? Can the feds require that you abide by all the laws of (insert least favorite state) even though you've never set foot in it?
- tzs 14y ago
  No, they were quite clear in Quill [1] that Congress can do this. ------------ This aspect of our decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, 10 but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve. No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions. See Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (1946). Indeed, in recent years, Congress has considered legislation that would "overrule" the Bellas Hess rule. 11 Its decision not to take action in this direction may, of course, have been dictated by respect for our holding in Bellas Hess that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from imposing such taxes, but today we have put that problem to rest. Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail-order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes. Indeed, even if we were convinced that Bellas Hess was inconsistent with our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, "this very fact [might] giv[e us] pause and counse[l] withholding our hand, at least for now. Congress has the power to protect interstate commerce from intolerable or even undesirable burdens." Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S., at 637 (1981) (WHITE, J., concurring). In this situation, it [504 U.S. 298, 319] may be that "the better part of both wisdom and valor is to respect the judgment of the other branches of the Government." Id., at 638. ------------ [1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=504&invol=298 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&#3...

Turing_Machine 14y ago

"the federal government definitely has authority to regulate interstate commerce" Agreed, but that's not what they're doing. They're granting authority to one state to regulate commerce in another state. They might have the authority to enact a national sales tax paid to the federal government (but then again, they might not -- note that the income tax required an actual constitutional amendment), but I don't think they can make citizens of one state subject to the tax (or other) laws of another. If they do have that power, how far does it go? Can the feds require that you abide by all the laws of (insert least favorite state) even though you've never set foot in it?

tzs 14y ago
No, they were quite clear in Quill [1] that Congress can do this. ------------ This aspect of our decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, 10 but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve. No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions. See Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (1946). Indeed, in recent years, Congress has considered legislation that would "overrule" the Bellas Hess rule. 11 Its decision not to take action in this direction may, of course, have been dictated by respect for our holding in Bellas Hess that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from imposing such taxes, but today we have put that problem to rest. Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail-order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes. Indeed, even if we were convinced that Bellas Hess was inconsistent with our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, "this very fact [might] giv[e us] pause and counse[l] withholding our hand, at least for now. Congress has the power to protect interstate commerce from intolerable or even undesirable burdens." Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S., at 637 (1981) (WHITE, J., concurring). In this situation, it [504 U.S. 298, 319] may be that "the better part of both wisdom and valor is to respect the judgment of the other branches of the Government." Id., at 638. ------------ [1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=504&invol=298 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&#3...