The Commerce Clause is Federal Law passed in the 1880s when railroads had power that was on-par with a State. Railroads demanded payment from cities (and states) in order to extend lines into new areas. Governmental units that refused to pay were by-passed.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.
Interstate commerce, or commerce among the several states, is the free exchange of commodities between citizens of different states across state lines. Commerce with foreign nations occurs between citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign governments and, either immediately or at some stage of its progress, is extraterritorial. Commerce with Indian tribes refers to traffic or commercial exchanges involving both the United States and American Indians.
The Commerce Clause was designed to eliminate an intense rivalry between the groups of those states that had tremendous commercial advantage as a result of their proximity to a major harbor, and those states that were not near a harbor. That disparity was the source of constant economic battles among the states. The exercise by Congress of its regulatory power has increased steadily with the growth and expansion of industry and means of transportation.
The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce in order to ensure that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various states. Emphasis is mineOne wonders if California imposing travel restrictions (for State employees) to various States and bans on purchasing goods and services from those States is a violation of the intent of the Commerce Clause.
Without the Commerce Clause, there is nothing to prohibit Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas (for instance) from imposing tariffs on all petroleum products passing through their states and destined to California, Illinois or any other BLUE state.
Knives cut both ways.
I believe there is a "market participant" exception to the Commerce Clause. That is, when a State is acting as an economic actor, rather than a sovereign state, it is not subject to the Commerce Clause.
ReplyDelete"On the other hand, the Court has refused to find that the state was a market participant when it conditioned sales on the subsequent behavior of the purchaser. The plurality in South-Central Timber said such"downstream regulation" was not exempt from the Commerce Clause."
ReplyDeleteCommerce Clause, dormant Commerce Clause and the extent to which the court opinions have stretched them or limited them are one of the most murky areas of Constitutional law.
Let's just say that other western states which are the source of much of California's water might consider shutting that off. It would make for interesting case law.
The dams on the Colorado are federally controlled. Not sure the states could do much there.
DeleteI note though that stealing water in the west is a bit more risky than stealing livestock. It can get sporty real quick.
Cali just busted more than 1 billion (with a 'B') dollars worth of illegally grown pot. Along with the charges for illegal pot farms, were charges for stolen water and other environmental illegalities.
DeleteThe dams may be federal, but I'll bet there are pipelines that can easily be disabled. Pipelines are notoriously hard to protect. Too much territory to cover.
DeleteWhat is California's debt rating? What are their balance of payments like? Seems as if they could become....a bad risk. The need for such preferred rankings would all depend on supply versus demand I guess.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, a state could impose a tax surcharge based upon policy risk. What's the risk that California begins taxing carbon? Maybe we should tack on an extra sales surcharge on pipelines going to California, to go to a state-sovereign wealth fund in anticipation of it happening at some point.
The Commerce Clause and it's use in dealing with states like Kali is only as useful as the judge who would hear lawsuits filed under the Clause. Since the commie left owns better than 90% of the judiciary body and soul odds of prevailing in such a lawsuit is minimal at best.
ReplyDeleteThe left spent more than half a century infiltrating, suborning and corrupting the media, academia and the legal system before they openly began their push to destroy our freedom.
Three are NO MORE LEGAL REMEDIES left for true Americans to resort to in an effort to stop them. We are at the point where we either surrender or start killing the commie bastards. There is no in between left.
Just a few comments:
DeleteThe party filing the legal action gets to choose the venue. The left uses the 9th District Court. Obviously, there are more conservative venues available.
In warfare, one "irregular" can tie-up between seven-and-twenty regular troops. Even if the action is doomed to fail, it still provides a favorable ratio of forces expended.
And if it does go to court, it provides public record of why the rules apply to one side but not the other. That is called transparency and the other side hates it.
Yes...but appeals are the wild card. And the ultimate venue of appeal...the SCOTUS, hasn't shown any cause for optimism lately. The left isn't in 100% control...but they do own enough of the courts to feel comfortable enough to show their true face.....and that should scare anyone who's awake....and not "woke".
DeleteThe Commerce Clause is part of the constitution and has been in force since 1789. The 1880's may have seen Congress pass legislation, but it wasn't the Commerce Clause.
ReplyDeleteMy error. Thanks for catching it and commenting.
DeleteIf only... sigh
ReplyDeleteOh, silly. The rule of law and Trix are for kids.
ReplyDelete