About "Interstate Travel to do ???.ANYTHING?..(.for all to know)

[Stuart G]

...Before the U.S. Constitution, travel & business between states was difficult. States set up their own laws &
regulations. The Constitution solved those problems of commerce & business.
....No one can regulate interstate business or interstate travel. When you enter a state, there is a sign that says you
are entering, no check point or cops checking to see if you are a "resident" OF THAT STATE OR NOT. (just a sign)
.............That is the law! IT IS PART OF THE REASON THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED!!!!

...............Yes, I taught the U.S. Constitution in high school as part of U.S.History class & it was required to teach that...

.......(therefore, I had to read up on the reasons that the Constitution was adopted to teach the class)

Maybe you don't believe it...then read up the reasons that the Constitution replaces the previous set of laws.

.................I think the previous set was called, "Articles of the Confederation" (not sure of name, it has been
a long time, over 20 years, since I taught that stuff)

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Have you ever driven into California? NT

[Hugh_Lebowski]

6. Many times myself, why?

There are agricultural checkpoints in many crossings, but I've never once been stopped at one for more than 20 secs, and more often than not I've just been waved through.

It's not any sort of check to see why you're coming into the state, only a quick question on whether you're transporting plants

[MarineCombatEngineer]

12. Many, many, many times,

the most I've ever been stopped at the Ag checkpoint is no more than 2-3 minutes, and that's only because of the long line of trucks in the truck lanes, once I get to the head of the pack, all I do is show my BoL, and then I'm on my merry way.

[Effete Snob]

14. Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_v._Taylor

Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that there was an exception to the "virtually per se rule of invalidity" of the dormant commerce clause. The Supreme Court of the United States found that a Maine law prohibiting the importation of out-of-state bait fish was constitutional because Maine authorities couldn't be certain that imported fish would be free of "parasites and nonnative species" that might pose environmental harm to local ecology. Discriminatory laws may be upheld only if they serve "legitimate local purposes that could not adequately be served by available nondiscriminatory alternatives," wrote Justice Blackmun, author of the majority opinion. In City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, the Court had previously ruled that New Jersey's ban of out-of-state solid waste was facially discriminatory to the state's residents in a national market and was therefore overturned.

[Baked Potato]

16. Many a time. If the dog sits down there will be a delay.

[Stuart G]

4. Against the U.S. Constitution.. No way ..

[roamer65]

3. Articles of Confederation.

1781-1789.

[Stuart G]

7. Yes, I made another mistake.....so I changed the name...you got me...

[roamer65]

8. Nope you are fine.

I forget shit at my age. This one I happened to remember….lol.

Shit happens.



I think federalism took a BIG a hit on Friday.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

5. The Repugs on the SC would not hesitate to upend that either.

[sop]

9. Texas' recent law banning abortions would be enforced through private litigation, not state action.

Under the Texas bill, lawsuits could be filed against those who violate its provisions, ranging from going to other states for access to abortion, providing transportation for others to get an abortion, or even hosting a website that facilitates obtaining one. If successful, plaintiffs could be awarded $10,000, in addition to attorney fees.

How would that square with the Constitution?

[modrepub]

11. If Healthcare Is Commerce (And Abortion Is Part of Healthcare)

then no state has the right to place limits on interstate commerce.

But who knows? The bozos on the SC seem to throw precedent to the wind these days. Smarter minds than mine will have to weigh in. This is far from settled IMHO.

[sop]

13. If allowed to stand, this sort of Vigilante Litigation will be a nightmare.

(WaPo) "When the U.S. Supreme Court declined in December to temporarily block the Texas law, which established the minimum $10,000 court award, state lawmakers saw a green light to use a new tool: letting citizens sue each other as a way to skirt around constitutionally questionable laws."

"Jonathan Mitchell, a former Texas solicitor general who is credited as a principal architect of the state’s abortion bill, defended it, saying government officials sometimes are unable or unwilling to enforce laws on their own. He believes other Texas-style laws will be most effective on 'culture war issues' such as enforcement of marijuana and abortion laws."

“'Private civil enforcement is useful when there are obstacles to conventional public enforcement. Sometimes illegal activities, such as fraud, are difficult for the government to detect, and private civil enforcement can encourage whistleblowers and deter conspiracies,' Mitchell said in a statement to The Post."

"But Regina Bateson, a political scientist who is an expert on vigilante political movements, said that if this form of governing becomes common, it could undermine American democracy."

[modrepub]

15. I Think I See Your Point

So if private individuals are enforcing the law then it's not a government making the restrictions therefore not interstate commerce restricting.

IDK. If the state gave the authority then IMHO it's still interfering with interstate commerce when someone goes across state lines for healthcare options. Again my opinion; who knows what the 5 bozos on the SC have to say.

If this passes, I see a whole host of similar items states on the liberal side can conduct against their conservative counterparts. I'm sure the SC will side with one group against the other but that would only expose them even more for what they are. Political hacks and opportunists.

Yea, we live in interesting times. Smarter minds will prevail. They generally do (unless you cheat).

[Tadpole Raisin]

10. Next SC will rule we can be asked for our 'papers' when we cross state lines

and report our movements to the authorities.

I so hope the midterms will damage republicans.