Podcasts about Dormant Commerce Clause

Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 1, 2025 26:35

Federalism is the division of power between the federal government and the states. The Constitution establishes this framework by outlining enumerated powers for the federal government, reserved powers for the states, and the Supremacy Clause to resolve conflicts between federal and state laws. The Supremacy Clause and preemption ensure federal law overrides conflicting state law. Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states its supremacy, while implied preemption occurs when federal and state laws conflict or federal regulation occupies an entire field. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Its interpretation has evolved, from expansive interpretations in cases like Gibbons v. Ogden and Wickard v. Filburn to modern limitations in United States v. Lopez and NFIB v. Sebelius. Key doctrines include the substantial effects test, channels and instrumentalities of commerce, and the aggregation principle. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states, emphasizing state sovereignty. Printz v. United States established that the federal government cannot compel states to implement federal programs. The Eleventh Amendment protects states from being sued in federal court without their consent, codifying the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Seminole Tribe v. Florida reinforced states' immunity from private lawsuits. The Dormant Commerce Clause prohibits state laws that unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce. The discrimination test and Pike balancing test are used to evaluate state laws. Granholm v. Heald struck down state laws favoring in-state wineries over out-of-state competitors. The State Action Doctrine distinguishes private conduct from government action for purposes of constitutional analysis. Shelley v. Kraemer and Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority are key cases in this area. Understanding federalism and the powers of the states is crucial for analyzing constitutional issues and understanding the balance between national and state authority. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Debbie Does The Dormant Commerce Clause

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 25, 2024 31:54

Why do professors think everyone has to personally experience the facts to understand the law? ----- Hardcore porn shows up in a law school lecture. You know, the rest of us managed to learn the relevant standards for obscenity laws within the context of the First Amendment without visual aides. Also, Diddy's lawyers forgot how track changes works with embarrassing results. And Judge Aileen Cannon doesn't know her Founding Fathers... how a flubbed disclosure form speaks to Originalism's cynical lie.

sean combs hardcore first amendment founding fathers originalism dormant commerce clause

Debbie Does The Dormant Commerce Clause

Legal Talk Network - Law News and Legal Topics

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 25, 2024 31:54

Why do professors think everyone has to personally experience the facts to understand the law? ----- Hardcore porn shows up in a law school lecture. You know, the rest of us managed to learn the relevant standards for obscenity laws within the context of the First Amendment without visual aides. Also, Diddy's lawyers forgot how track changes works with embarrassing results. And Judge Aileen Cannon doesn't know her Founding Fathers... how a flubbed disclosure form speaks to Originalism's cynical lie.

sean combs hardcore first amendment founding fathers originalism dormant commerce clause

Constitutional Law: Commerce Clause

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 22, 2024 19:32

1. Background and Constitutional Basis The Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce. The clause reads: "Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This provision is a critical element of the federal government's ability to influence a wide array of economic, social, and legal issues across the country. 2. Federal Powers and Implications Broad Scope of Regulatory Authority: Historically, the Commerce Clause has provided the basis for significant expansions of federal power. This authority allows Congress to address issues that transcend state boundaries, which individual states might be ill-equipped to handle alone. For example, environmental regulations, anti-discrimination laws, and labor standards often require uniformity that only the federal government can provide. Economic and Social Impact: The federal government's regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause can also affect large segments of the economy, such as transportation, labor relations, and telecommunications. The impact extends beyond purely economic considerations, influencing social welfare and public health. Contemporary Relevance: In modern contexts, the Commerce Clause has been a foundational legal basis for implementing legislation like the Affordable Care Act, specifically the individual mandate, which was initially argued under this clause before being upheld under the taxing power. 3. State Powers and the Dormant Commerce Clause Dormant Commerce Clause Concept: While the Commerce Clause grants power to the federal government, it also implicitly restricts the states from enacting legislation that interferes with or discriminates against interstate commerce. This concept, known as the Dormant Commerce Clause, ensures a free and open national market. State Legislation Impact: States are often barred from passing laws that would favor local businesses or industries at the expense of out-of-state competitors. This prohibition helps prevent a "race to the bottom," where states might otherwise engage in competitive deregulation to attract businesses at the expense of broader public interests. Balancing Local and National Interests: The Supreme Court often finds itself balancing state powers against federal interests, deciding whether state laws unduly burden interstate commerce by applying a test of whether the local benefits of the regulation outweigh the burdens on interstate commerce. 4. Key Cases Illustrating Commerce Clause Applications Wickard v. Filburn (1942): This landmark case dramatically expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause, holding that even personal activities affecting the broader market (like growing wheat for personal use) could be regulated by Congress if, in the aggregate, they have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. Gonzales v. Raich (2005): This case further affirmed federal power under the Commerce Clause, allowing Congress to criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states have legalized it, under the theory that such local activities could affect the national market. United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000): These cases signaled a shift, with the Court imposing limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause. In Lopez, the Court struck down a federal law banning guns near schools, ruling it exceeded Congress's commerce power. Morrison followed suit by invalidating parts of the Violence Against Women Act on similar grounds. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): Although the Commerce Clause did not ultimately serve as the basis for upholding the ACA's individual mandate, the extensive discussions surrounding the case highlighted the ongoing debate over the scope of federal regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Legal News for Thurs 2/22 - CA Gun Law Blocked, Corporate Legal Explores AI, and NY Mobile Driver's License Hits Privacy Snag

Minimum Competence

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 22, 2024 7:29

This Day in Legal History: Felix Frankfurter DiesOn this day in legal history, February 22, 1965, the legal community and the United States at large lost one of its most influential and intellectually formidable figures, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who passed away in Washington, DC. Born in Vienna, Austria, in 1882, Frankfurter emigrated to the U.S. with his family, rising from humble beginnings to become a professor at Harvard Law School, and eventually, in 1939, a Supreme Court Justice nominated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His tenure on the court was marked by a strong adherence to judicial restraint, a philosophy advocating for the courts to avoid deciding more than what was necessary for the resolution of a case.Frankfurter's notable achievements include his influential opinions on civil rights and liberties, his pivotal role in the development of the doctrine of incorporation, which applied the Bill of Rights to the states, and his mentorship of several future legal scholars and justices. His majority opinions and concurring opinions are studied for their meticulous craftsmanship and deep respect for the Constitution's framers. However, his career was not without controversy; Frankfurter was often criticized for his perceived conservatism and reluctance to join the more liberal bloc of the court in expanding civil rights.His advocacy for judicial restraint and his approach to the Constitution often put him at odds with colleagues who were more willing to interpret the Constitution as a living document. Despite these controversies, Frankfurter's impact on American law and constitutional interpretation remains indelible, making him a central figure in the history of the Supreme Court. His legacy is one of intellectual rigor, profound respect for the law, and a deep-seated belief in the power of judicial restraint to protect the democratic process.On February 21, a federal judge in San Diego issued a ruling that temporarily prevents California's attorney general from enforcing a new law targeting the firearms industry. This law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2022, allows for legal action against manufacturers and sellers of "abnormally dangerous" guns. The judge's decision, responding to a lawsuit by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), suggests that the law likely violates the Constitution's dormant Commerce Clause by affecting interstate commerce. Specifically, the law could impose liability on out-of-state gun manufacturers for crimes committed in California with their legally manufactured weapons. This preliminary injunction halts the state's ability to sue the firearms industry under this law while the lawsuit progresses. The ruling does not address Second Amendment concerns but focuses on the law's potential to interfere with interstate commerce. Governor Newsom's administration is reportedly consulting on next steps, emphasizing that the ruling still allows for the pursuit of "bad actors" in the gun industry for harms caused by their products. This case highlights the ongoing legal and constitutional debates surrounding gun control and state versus federal powers in the United States.By way of very brief background, and hopefully only as a refresher if you are one of our lawyer listeners, the Dormant Commerce Clause refers to a legal doctrine derived from the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The "dormant" aspect of this doctrine implies that, in the absence of federal regulations, states cannot enact legislation that discriminates against or unduly burdens interstate commerce. Essentially, it serves as a prohibition against state protectionism, ensuring that the flow of interstate trade remains free from unnecessary restrictions imposed by individual states. This principle aims to maintain a national economic union, preventing states from enacting laws that favor in-state businesses over out-of-state competitors, thereby preserving a unified, competitive market across state lines.Judge blocks California from suing makers of 'abnormally dangerous' guns | ReutersCorporate legal departments are currently exploring the potential of generative artificial intelligence (AI), with a focus on its application in the legal industry, under the guidance of a new initiative called The Sense Collective. This initiative, spearheaded by Factor, aims to convene in-house lawyers from major corporations such as Adobe, Ford, Intel, and Microsoft to deliberate on the optimal use of AI tools in legal practices. Despite the enthusiasm surrounding generative AI for tasks like drafting documents, legal research, and e-discovery, many legal departments remain in the experimental phase, carefully assessing the technology's implications and applications.Ed Sohn of Factor highlights the ongoing exploration into accessing generative AI, whether through market-available tech products or direct chat interfaces like Microsoft Copilot or OpenAI's ChatGPT Enterprise. Mike Haven from Intel noted that while his legal department has utilized AI for various tasks, generative AI represents a newer frontier, prompting a cautious and deliberate approach to its deployment.The Sense Collective, beyond serving as a forum for discussion, is intent on identifying solutions that deliver substantial value to their organizations. This includes examining the effective use of tools such as Copilot and addressing broader questions regarding AI's impact on legal department investments, business counseling, and ethical considerations.An interesting aspect of the collective's work will be the development of generative AI prototypes tailored for legal use cases. Additionally, the group is keen on monitoring advancements in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) technology, which promises to enhance AI tool accuracy by leveraging an organization's institutional knowledge. Membership in The Sense Collective is limited and requires a financial commitment, with outputs from the group's discussions reserved exclusively for its members.Top In-House Counsel Band Together to Experiment with Gen AIUS Justice Dept names first AI officer as new technology challenges law enforcement | ReutersIn anticipation of New York's pilot for mobile driver's licenses, lawmaker Michaelle Solages is spearheading legislation to establish model privacy standards amidst the national trend towards digital identification. This initiative seeks to address the security and transparency concerns that have arisen with the digitalization of IDs. Solages' proposed legislation emphasizes voluntary adoption of digital IDs, mandates state management of the wallet application, and sets strict controls on data handling and usage, including a prohibition on selling data to third parties and requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant for data access.The bill aims to create a framework that accommodates various uses of digital IDs, ensuring privacy, security, and cost-effectiveness. This approach contrasts with the New York DMV's current direction, which involved a $1.7 million contract with IDEMIA for a digital identity platform without extensive public discussion on privacy safeguards. Critics like Ross Schulman from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Zachary Martin from Venable have underscored the importance of public debate and comprehensive stakeholder engagement in shaping digital ID policies.Privacy advocates are particularly concerned about third-party partnerships and the potential for increased surveillance through digital IDs, advocating for technical protections like encryption and granular data control. Amidst these concerns, the New York DMV is still finalizing the mobile ID pilot, with no set timeline for its rollout. Solages remains optimistic about collaborating with the DMV and external groups to ensure the digital licensing initiative prioritizes the security and privacy of New Yorkers, highlighting the legislative effort to safeguard privacy alongside technological advancements.Mobile Driver's Licenses Face Privacy Scrutiny Ahead of NY Pilot Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Mastering the Bar Exam: Constitutional Law - Introduction to Constitutional Law (Session Two)

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 27, 2023 6:21

The Powers of Congress (Commerce Clause, Taxing, and Spending Powers). Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This clause has been a cornerstone for expanding federal legislative power. Historically, its interpretation has varied from narrow in the early 19th century to expansive during the New Deal era and beyond. Key cases like Gibbons v Ogden (1824) and Wickard v Filburn (1942) demonstrate the evolving nature of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. In Gibbons, the Supreme Court established that federal power over interstate commerce was plenary, overriding state laws that interfered with it. Wickard significantly broadened this interpretation, holding that even activities seemingly local in nature could affect interstate commerce and thus fall under federal regulation. Taxing and Spending Powers. Congress also wields substantial power through its ability to tax and spend for the "general Welfare" (Article 1, Section 8). This power, while ostensibly straightforward, has profound implications for national policy and governance. In cases like United States v Butler (1936), the Supreme Court recognized Congress's broad discretion in taxing and spending to promote the general welfare. However, it also underscored that such powers must not contravene other constitutional provisions. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), particularly the case National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius (2012), is a contemporary example where the taxing power played a key role. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA's individual mandate, characterizing it as a tax and thus within Congress's constitutional authority. The Tenth Amendment and State Powers. The Tenth Amendment is crucial in maintaining the federal balance. It states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment emphasizes the principle of reserved powers, ensuring that states retain a significant sphere of autonomy. The interpretation and application of the Tenth Amendment have been central in cases dealing with the limits of federal power. In New York v United States (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program, underscoring state sovereignty. Similarly, Printz v United States (1997) affirmed that the federal government could not commandeer state officers to implement federal laws. The Dormant Commerce Clause. The Dormant Commerce Clause is an inferred principle from the Commerce Clause, suggesting that in granting Congress power over interstate commerce, the Constitution implicitly restricts states from passing legislation that interferes with or discriminates against interstate commerce. This doctrine plays a critical role in maintaining an open national market, free from parochial state interests. Cases like Cooley v Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia (1852) and South Dakota v Wayfair, Inc. (2018) illustrate the Court's approach to balancing state interests against the need for a uniform national economy. Wayfair, in particular, marked a significant shift, allowing states to require out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax, reflecting the realities of the modern digital economy. Intergovernmental Immunities. Intergovernmental immunities encompass doctrines that prevent the federal and state governments from encroaching on each other's essential functions. This concept, though not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, is derived from the federal structure itself. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

#Bestof2022: #SCOTUS:The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverInst, Tisch Professor of Law NYU Bedford Senior Fellow; Hoover Institution; senior lecturer, University of Chicago La

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 26, 2023 12:19

#Bestof2022: #SCOTUS:The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverInst, Tisch Professor of Law NYU Bedford Senior Fellow; Hoover Institution; senior lecturer, University of Chicago Law School. https://www.hoover.org/research/high-court-referee-california-food-fight 1930 FDR

university california professor states scotus senior fellow tisch franklin delano roosevelt senior lecturer bedford hoover institution university of chicago chicago law school dormant commerce clause richard a epstein

1/2: #SCOTUS:The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverInst, Tisch Professor of Law NYU Bedford Senior Fellow; Hoover Institution; senior lecturer, University of Chicago Law School

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 15, 2023 12:20

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 1/2: #SCOTUS:The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverInst, Tisch Professor of Law NYU Bedford Senior Fellow; Hoover Institution; senior lecturer, University of Chicago Law School. https://www.hoover.org/research/high-court-referee-california-food-fight

university california professor states scotus senior fellow tisch senior lecturer law schools bedford hoover institution university of chicago chicago law school dormant commerce clause richard a epstein

2/2: #SCOTUS:The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverInst, Tisch Professor of Law NYU Bedford Senior Fellow; Hoover Institution; senior lecturer, University of Chicago Law School

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 15, 2023 8:19

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 2/2: #SCOTUS:The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverInst, Tisch Professor of Law NYU Bedford Senior Fellow; Hoover Institution; senior lecturer, University of Chicago Law School. https://www.hoover.org/research/high-court-referee-california-food-fight

university california professor states scotus senior fellow tisch senior lecturer law schools bedford hoover institution university of chicago chicago law school dormant commerce clause richard a epstein

#Bestof2022: 2/2: #SCOTUS: The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverIns. (Originally posted April 12, 2022)

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 9, 2023 8:19

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #Bestof2022: 2/2: #SCOTUS: The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverIns. (Originally posted April 12, 2022) https://www.hoover.org/research/high-court-referee-california-food-fight

california states scotus originally posted dormant commerce clause richard a epstein

#Bestof2022: 1/2: #SCOTUS: The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverIns. (Originally posted April 12, 2022)

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 9, 2023 12:19

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #Bestof2022: 1/2: #SCOTUS: The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverIns. (Originally posted April 12, 2022) https://www.hoover.org/research/high-court-referee-california-food-fight

california states scotus originally posted dormant commerce clause richard a epstein

Opinionpalooza

california law state epa goldsmith clean water act sackett andy warhol foundation taamneh dormant commerce clause

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 4, 2023 55:39

This week's episode covers big opinions from the past few weeks, including Twitter v. Taamneh (whether social media is civilly liable for terrorism), Sackett v. EPA (how do different justices interpret the Clean Water Act), Pork Council v. Ross (does the Dormant Commerce Clause bar California from legislating out of State) and Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (does fair use consider artistic merit or commercial usage). Law starts at (4:40).

Part 2: National Pork Producer's Council v. Ross (May 2023) (Dormant Commerce Clause, Interstate Commerce, CA Proposition 12)

What SCOTUS Wrote Us

Play Episode Listen Later May 17, 2023 28:37

Does a California law requiring pork sold in-state to come from animals raised with certain confinement standards violate the "dormant" Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Audio of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in National Pork Producer's Council v. Ross (May 2023) Music by Epidemic Sound

music california national supreme court council constitution pork proposition epidemic sound commerce clause interstate commerce dormant commerce clause

National Pork Producer's Council v. Ross (May 2023) (Dormant Commerce Clause, Interstate Commerce, CA Proposition 12)

What SCOTUS Wrote Us

Play Episode Listen Later May 17, 2023 29:08

Does a California law requiring pork sold in-state to come from animals raised with certain confinement standards violate the "dormant" Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Audio of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in National Pork Producer's Council v. Ross (May 2023) Music by Epidemic Sound

music california national supreme court council constitution pork proposition epidemic sound commerce clause interstate commerce dormant commerce clause

Episode 32: "The United States of Westeros; Federalism in the Seven Kingdoms"

Learned Hands: The Official Podcast of the Westerosi Bar Association

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 13, 2023 156:54

In this thirty-second episode of Learned Hands, the Official Podcast of the Westerosi Bar Association, Merry & Clint ask: Is the Seven Kingdoms a Federalist System? Which has more power, a US State or a Westerosi Realm?Our analysis this week includes:The Westerosi Seven Kingdoms are compared and contrasted with real-life federal and confederate systems back to antiquity.Your hosts have some strong words to say about James Madison, effete dork, slavery enthusiast, and the only US president to allow Canada to burn the Capitol to cinders.We evaluate the good-government bona fides of Aegon the Conquerer, Maegor the Cruel, Jaehaerys the Conciliator, Good Queen Alysanne, Septon Barth, and others. Clint gets so amped up to talk about Federalist Papers that you can hear him vibrating with sheer glee.Maester Merry squares off in a LAWYER FIGHT against her greatest ever foe: Maester Merry.Answers to your questions about federal taxes, customs, minting, and central banking!The return of burrito analogies to explain things like the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, the Dormant Commerce Clause, Field Preemption, and Younger Abstention (we are sorry, this is a lot). We finally update on the WBA 2023 Dues Donation Drive which is ON NOW (PAY YOUR DUES)Supplemental reading: Where do pay your duesFederalist 45, and other Federalist Papers to read at your leisure.Cold Open and Bumpers by Jimi and Ray. Extensive audio engineering by LittleWolfBird. Intro & Outro music courtesy Sid Luscious & The Pants. Cold Open music composer Nico Maximilian, Audio source: Jamendo. None of this should be construed as legal advice OBVIOUSLY. Support the show

1/2: #Bestof2022: #SCOTUS: The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverIns..

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 2, 2023 12:19

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 1/2: #Bestof2022: #SCOTUS: The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverIns.. https://www.hoover.org/research/high-court-referee-california-food-fight

california states scotus dormant commerce clause richard a epstein

2/2: #Bestof2022: #SCOTUS: The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverIns.

What Roman Mars Can Learn About Con Law

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 2, 2023 8:19

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 2/2: #Bestof2022: #SCOTUS: The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverIns. https://www.hoover.org/research/high-court-referee-california-food-fight

california states scotus dormant commerce clause richard a epstein

Talkin' Politics 1/16/23 | Kati Porter For Senate; Missouri Makes National News For The Right To Bare Arms; Non-Compete Clause FTC Rule Proposal; Interpreting National Media Prediction BS; Last Call Preview "The Dog Caught The Car"

Heartland POD

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 16, 2023 55:41

Heartland POD on Twitter - @TheHeartlandPOD Co-HostsAdam Sommer @Adam_Sommer85 (Twitter) @adam_sommer85 (Post)Rachel Parker @msraitchetp (Post)Sean Diller @SeanDillerCO (Post)https://heartlandpod.com/JOIN PATREON FOR MORE!“Change The Conversation”True or FalseKatie Porter running for Senate is a big damn dealKatie Porter (she's from Iowa, y'all!); huge news! (If you love Katie Porter, then reference what Kunce has said; they're interchangeable.) Porter was born on January 3, 1974, in Fort Dodge, Iowa. She grew up on a farm in southern Iowa.[7][8] Her father, Dan Porter, was a farmer-turned-banker.[2] Her mother, Liz, was a founder of Fons & Porter's Love of Quilting.Campaign site: https://katieporter.com/Fox is head hunting already https://www.foxnews.com/media/katie-porter-allegations-racist-rhetoric-staff-abuse-ignored-media-outlets-launches-senate-bidPolitico story on launch: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/10/katie-porter-senate-campaign-feinstein-00077210 Yeah…No, Yeah The Missouri House made all the national outletsRule change regarding women's bare armsTruly ridiculous bullshitKC area Rep. Ashley Aune on CNN https://www.cnn.com/videos/style/2023/01/13/missouri-lawmakers-adopt-stricter-dress-code-women-state-house-nr-vpx.cnnRep. Rachel Proudie absolutely lite up the house floorhttps://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1613306806847115268?s=20&t=1lOKnHYUwluJQQEwfzlO-QGood tweets to shout out https://twitter.com/babsbruno/status/1613978982109818880?s=46&t=WE-05jubL0mkCZ6ibBJVPAhttps://twitter.com/mgotf/status/1614374167666638849?s=46&t=0ukPksdFejaHB9aLvQl1kQBuy or Sell New proposed Federal Trade Commission rule regarding non competes is good for average AmericansSummary of issue: https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/ftc-proposes-rule-banning-non-competes#:~:text=The%20rule%20defines%20a%20%E2%80%9Cnon,worker's%20employment%20with%20the%20employer.%E2%80%9DFTC website info: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftc-proposes-rule-ban-noncompete-clauses-which-hurt-workers-harm-competitionLargely unenforceable, require litigation and the requirements for enforcement are pretty strictRestraint of commerceSean — did someone say “Dormant Commerce Clause?”The Big OneRemember last year when Glen Younkin was elected and we were like “Yeah, that was perfect conditions, don't freak out” and the larger response from political analysts was “this is a compete climate change, everything is different forever”Oh, The Media Cycle. You Still Kind of Suck.Don't confuse a gusty day for a change in the weather (Yes, we mean Glenn Youngkin). We said that the actual bellwether was PA (and we were right); YES, it's changing. But the press ran away with his victory but the media spin was so self-obsessed, it was kind of fucking ridiculousThe national media is always so eager to tell us not what happened but what it means, forever. - AdamWhat they said: https://www.semafor.com/article/01/10/2023/virginia-special-election-youngkin-abortionWhat happened (Does this mean he's broken now?) https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3807820-democrat-appears-to-flip-virginia-state-senate-seat-in-closely-watched-special-election/Shout out to the great VA state sen (and majority leader) Louise Lucas (from the Semafor story): “My birthday is going to be the 50th anniversary of when Roe v. Wade was decided,” State Senate President L. Louise Lucas told Rouse and other Democrats who were heading out to knock doors on Saturday. “You think I'm going to let them turn it back? Hell fuckin' no!”LAST CALL — THE DOG CAUGHT THE CARThe dog caught the car: The GOP has power now. Their actual desire is to break the levers. When you have control of the thing you're trying to break, you don't do anything. GrievancesBiden documents (3 “ROUNDS” NOWGood summary from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/14/biden-documents-discovery-donald-trump-winnerHunter BidenInvestigating the investigations)Russia gate: https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/russia-twitter-bots-trump-election/ Compare and contrast: Where the Tea Party (what is now the “Freedom Caucus or as The Great Kara Swisher calls them “The Chaos Caucus) numbers are now vs. in 2010

Talkin' Politics 1/16/23 | Kati Porter For Senate; Missouri Makes National News For The Right To Bare Arms; Non-Compete Clause FTC Rule Proposal; Interpreting National Media Prediction BS; Last Call Preview "The Dog Caught The Car"

The Heartland POD

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 16, 2023 55:41

Heartland POD on Twitter - @TheHeartlandPOD Co-HostsAdam Sommer @Adam_Sommer85 (Twitter) @adam_sommer85 (Post)Rachel Parker @msraitchetp (Post)Sean Diller @SeanDillerCO (Post)https://heartlandpod.com/JOIN PATREON FOR MORE!“Change The Conversation”True or FalseKatie Porter running for Senate is a big damn dealKatie Porter (she's from Iowa, y'all!); huge news! (If you love Katie Porter, then reference what Kunce has said; they're interchangeable.) Porter was born on January 3, 1974, in Fort Dodge, Iowa. She grew up on a farm in southern Iowa.[7][8] Her father, Dan Porter, was a farmer-turned-banker.[2] Her mother, Liz, was a founder of Fons & Porter's Love of Quilting.Campaign site: https://katieporter.com/Fox is head hunting already https://www.foxnews.com/media/katie-porter-allegations-racist-rhetoric-staff-abuse-ignored-media-outlets-launches-senate-bidPolitico story on launch: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/10/katie-porter-senate-campaign-feinstein-00077210 Yeah…No, Yeah The Missouri House made all the national outletsRule change regarding women's bare armsTruly ridiculous bullshitKC area Rep. Ashley Aune on CNN https://www.cnn.com/videos/style/2023/01/13/missouri-lawmakers-adopt-stricter-dress-code-women-state-house-nr-vpx.cnnRep. Rachel Proudie absolutely lite up the house floorhttps://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1613306806847115268?s=20&t=1lOKnHYUwluJQQEwfzlO-QGood tweets to shout out https://twitter.com/babsbruno/status/1613978982109818880?s=46&t=WE-05jubL0mkCZ6ibBJVPAhttps://twitter.com/mgotf/status/1614374167666638849?s=46&t=0ukPksdFejaHB9aLvQl1kQBuy or Sell New proposed Federal Trade Commission rule regarding non competes is good for average AmericansSummary of issue: https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/ftc-proposes-rule-banning-non-competes#:~:text=The%20rule%20defines%20a%20%E2%80%9Cnon,worker's%20employment%20with%20the%20employer.%E2%80%9DFTC website info: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftc-proposes-rule-ban-noncompete-clauses-which-hurt-workers-harm-competitionLargely unenforceable, require litigation and the requirements for enforcement are pretty strictRestraint of commerceSean — did someone say “Dormant Commerce Clause?”The Big OneRemember last year when Glen Younkin was elected and we were like “Yeah, that was perfect conditions, don't freak out” and the larger response from political analysts was “this is a compete climate change, everything is different forever”Oh, The Media Cycle. You Still Kind of Suck.Don't confuse a gusty day for a change in the weather (Yes, we mean Glenn Youngkin). We said that the actual bellwether was PA (and we were right); YES, it's changing. But the press ran away with his victory but the media spin was so self-obsessed, it was kind of fucking ridiculousThe national media is always so eager to tell us not what happened but what it means, forever. - AdamWhat they said: https://www.semafor.com/article/01/10/2023/virginia-special-election-youngkin-abortionWhat happened (Does this mean he's broken now?) https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3807820-democrat-appears-to-flip-virginia-state-senate-seat-in-closely-watched-special-election/Shout out to the great VA state sen (and majority leader) Louise Lucas (from the Semafor story): “My birthday is going to be the 50th anniversary of when Roe v. Wade was decided,” State Senate President L. Louise Lucas told Rouse and other Democrats who were heading out to knock doors on Saturday. “You think I'm going to let them turn it back? Hell fuckin' no!”LAST CALL — THE DOG CAUGHT THE CARThe dog caught the car: The GOP has power now. Their actual desire is to break the levers. When you have control of the thing you're trying to break, you don't do anything. GrievancesBiden documents (3 “ROUNDS” NOWGood summary from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/14/biden-documents-discovery-donald-trump-winnerHunter BidenInvestigating the investigations)Russia gate: https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/russia-twitter-bots-trump-election/ Compare and contrast: Where the Tea Party (what is now the “Freedom Caucus or as The Great Kara Swisher calls them “The Chaos Caucus) numbers are now vs. in 2010

71- The War Between the States

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 27, 2022 31:19

How the Dormant Commerce Clause tries to stop states from passing laws that put an undue burden on interstate commerce and what that means for states that wish to forward specific ethical agendas. Plus, what's going on with student debt relief: who filed a lawsuit against it and why.

california supreme court pork debt relief dormant commerce clause war between the states

11/15/2022 Today's Marijuana and Cannabis Industry News - MJBIZ CON, Lame Duck Legalization, Dormant Commerce Clause

The M News Now

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 15, 2022 7:24

MJBIZ CON Will The Next Month and Half's “Lame Duck” Session Get Legalization Issues Passed? New York Dispensary Licenses Held Up by “Dormant Commerce Clause” … But This Hold Up Could Also Be The Key to Interstate Cannabis Commerce! Governors Really Matter When It Comes to Legalization

marijuana legalization cannabis industry lame duck industry news mjbiz dormant commerce clause

The Hogs of Federalism

california law states scotus hogs federalism nazim national pork producers council dormant commerce clause

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 30, 2022 35:29

This week's episode is a real SCOTUS ghost story for Nazim, as the podcast covers National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which asks whether a California law which affects pork farms in other States violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. Law starts at (03:13), but this is a generally silly episode from start to finish.

Pork, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and Legislating Morality

We the People

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 21, 2022 44:10

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in National Pork Producers v. Ross. The case is about a 2018 California ballot initiative, in which voters decided that the state should prohibit the in-state sale of pork from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with California standards. Opponents of the amendment argue that it violates dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Today on We the People, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law join host Jeffrey Rosen discuss whether the Interstate Commerce Clause restricts states from regulating in-state conduct that has a substantial impact on mostly out-of-state producers. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

california supreme court morality pork opponents legislating berkeley law stanford law jeffrey rosen erwin chemerinsky commerce clause michael mcconnell dormant commerce clause

Episode 25 - Dormant Commerce Clause and Whether Trees Can Sue

Lex Rex Institute Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2022 60:33

In this episode, we bring you a brief update on some of Lex Rex's real-world legal work and discuss one of the cases before the Supreme Court in the new October term, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. We'll talk you through what's meant by the “dormant commerce clause” and consider the implications of allowing one state to dictate policies to the rest.After that, we have an extra-special, extra-long edition of Captain Kangaroo Court for you! Alexander relates his experiences defending a client before an actual kangaroo court before we consider the age-old question: what legal rights do trees have? (There's a stealth edition of the Supreme Court Hall of Shame in there, as well, although in this case we're looking at a dissenting opinion.)National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (3:50)Captain Kangaroo Court (26:45)Not-so-secret Supreme Court Hall of Shame: dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton (40:30)

shame supreme court trees morton sierra club national pork producers council lex rex dormant commerce clause

The Dormant Commerce Clause; Consumers' Research v. CPSC

Administrative Static Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 14, 2022 25:00

1 The Dormant Commerce ClauseIn 2018, California approved Proposition 12, what supporters describe as the country's strongestlaw to protect farm animals. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in National PorkProducers Council v. Ross challenging the constitutionality of the law. The challengers, twogroups that represent farmers and pork producers, contend the law “will transform the porkindustry nationwide,” while California and its supporters insist that the impact will be morelimited. And both sides of the dispute contend that a ruling for the other side will have legalimplications far beyond animal welfare.Vec discusses the Supreme Court's argument in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross andthe Dormant Commerce Clause. 2 Consumers' Research v. CPSCNCLA has filed an amicus brief in Consumers' Research, et al. v. CPSC, a case before the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Consumers' Research successfully challenged thestructure of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) after a federal district court heldthat the agency violated Article II of the Constitution and the separation of powers because theCommission exercises substantial executive power but is improperly insulated from presidentialremoval. CPSC has appealed that decision.Mark and Vec discuss NCLA's amicus brief in Consumers' Research v. CPSC.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

california research court supreme court constitution consumers appeals proposition fifth circuit article ii vec cpsc national pork producers council consumers' research ncla dormant commerce clause

1292 – Arguments Heard on California's Proposition 12 Law … A Warning for Corn Producers About Tar Spot

Agriculture Today

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 12, 2022 29:37

Arguments Heard on California's Proposition 12 Law A Warning for Corn Producers About Tar Spot Beef Cattle Institute's Ask the Experts: Bull Calves 00:01:00 – Arguments Heard on California's Proposition 12 Law: The Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments yesterday morning for the case involving California's Proposition 12 law. K-State and Washburn University School of Law professor, Roger McEowen, breaks down the results of those arguments including the weak claims of the Dormant Commerce Clause brought by the lawyers representing producers and the question of whether labeling would solve this problem completely. 00:13:35 – A Warning for Corn Producers About Tar Spot: K-State row crop pathologist, Rodrigo Onofre, joins us to warn producers about a new corn disease in Kansas – tar spot. He explains where the disease has been spotted so far and why it is so important for producers to check their fields and take action now to prevent losses next year. Rodrigo's Agronomy eUpdate article about tar spot 00:24:35 – Beef Cattle Institute's Ask the Experts: K-State experts Brad White, Bob Larson, and Phillip Lancaster discuss whether to castrate bull calves prior to selling them. BCI Cattle Chat Podcast To have your beef cattle questions answered by the BCI Ask the Experts team - send them an email at bci@ksu.edu Send comments, questions or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu. Agriculture Today is a daily program featuring Kansas State University agricultural specialists and other experts examining ag issues facing Kansas and the nation. It is hosted by Samantha Bennett and distributed to radio stations throughout Kansas and as a daily podcast. K‑State Research and Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices, experiment fields, area Extension offices and regional research centers statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan.

Taxation in the US (2022): State and local taxation: Sales taxes (Part Four) (Texas thru Wyoming) + Internet transactions

Cannabis Legalization News

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 23, 2022 23:10

Internet transactions. Through the Internet's history, purchases made over the Internet within the United States have generally been exempt from sales tax, as courts have followed the Supreme Court ruling from Quill Corporation v North Dakota (1992) that a state may only collect sales tax from a business selling products over the Internet if that entity has a physical location in the state. This decision was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause that prevents states from interfering in interstate commerce, unless granted that authority by Congress. Some retailers, like Amazon.com, had voluntarily started collecting sales tax on purchases even from states where they do not have a physical presence. Many states also have a line item on their tax returns allowing the payment of state sales tax when state income tax is filed by an individual or corporation. In May 2013, the Senate passed the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would allow states to collect sales taxes for purchases made online. The legislation would give States the tools to collect sales taxes on cross-State sales transactions. The bill received support from retailers including Walmart and Amazon.com, who have claimed that it is unfair not to require online merchants to collect sales taxes. Groups like the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association have said that requiring online vendors to collect sales taxes will help make brick and mortar retailers more competitive. However, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner stated that it would be difficult to implement such a system due to varying tax codes in different states. The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) spoke out against the bill, along with The Heritage Foundation, which indicated that it would harm Internet commerce and small businesses. Online retailer eBay believes it will hurt some of its sellers and lobbied Congress to exempt businesses that have less than $10 million in out-of-state sales or fewer than 50 employees. The Act failed to pass in either the 112th or 113th Congress. In October 2017, the state of South Dakota petitioned the Supreme Court to abrogate the Quill decision, citing the ease that online retailers can now determine the location and appropriate sales tax for purchases compared to the state of the Internet in 1992. Several online retailers, including Wayfair, Overstock.com and Newegg, submitted petitions in opposition to South Dakota, stating that the impact will be difficult on small and medium-sized retailers that would not have ease of access to these tools. In January 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case South Dakota v Wayfair Incorporated in its 2018 term. Oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court on April 17, 2018. During oral arguments South Dakota's attorney general, Marty Jackley, and the U.S. Solicitor General's representative, Malcolm L Stewart, both posited that if the Court overturns the Quill decision that the ruling must be retroactive and not merely prospective. Several Justices were concerned about the burden that back taxes and ongoing sales and use tax compliance would place on small businesses. On June 21, 2018 the Supreme Court held that states may charge tax on purchases made from out-of-state sellers, even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the taxing state. The court's 5–4 majority decision overturned Quill, ruling that the physical presence rule decided by Quill was 'unsound and incorrect' in the current age of Internet services. Value added tax. There is no value added tax in the United States. There have been proposals to replace some Federal taxes with a value added tax. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Federal Court Case Bombshell | Dormant Commerce Clause Invalidates Residency Requirements

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 21, 2022

We've reached the end of another week and the near end of summer. Once again, we bring you the most titillating cannabis news stories that have happened since our last broadcast. Federal Court Case Bombshell | Dormant Commerce Clause Invalidates Residency RequirementsThere was a bombshell of a court case that can potentially have nationwide impact on how cannabis business licenses are awarded. The next states to vote on legalization are squaring up. New York and Alabama have also made the news. We have WeedTube founder Arend Richard on as our special guest. Join us as we discuss these topics and weigh in on the censorship that pervades the industry. Don't miss this latest episode of

new york alabama requirements bombshell residency federal court court cases cln weedtube dormant commerce clause arend richard

2/2: #SCOTUS: The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverInst, Tisch Professor of Law NYU Bedford Senior Fellow; Hoover Institution; senior lecturer, University of Chicago Law School

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 13, 2022 8:50

Photo: The State Bear of California 2/2: #SCOTUS: The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverInst, Tisch Professor of Law NYU Bedford Senior Fellow; Hoover Institution; senior lecturer, University of Chicago Law School.RV https://www.hoover.org/research/high-court-referee-california-food-fight

university california professor states rv scotus senior fellow tisch senior lecturer law schools bedford hoover institution university of chicago chicago law school dormant commerce clause richard a epstein

The Dormant Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce.RV

The State of Cannabis NewsHour

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 13, 2022 12:50

Photo: Chief Justice John Marshall first envisioned the dormant commerce clause doctrine in his 1824 opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden. The Dormant Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce.RV 1/2: #SCOTUS:The Dormant Commerce Clause: Does California rule the other 49 states? Richard A Epstein, @RichardAEpstein, @HooverInst, Tisch Professor of Law NYU Bedford Senior Fellow; Hoover Institution; senior lecturer, University of Chicago Law School. https://www.hoover.org/research/high-court-referee-california-food-fight

university states passing scotus legislation burdens prohibition ogden gibbons hoover institution implicit john marshall refers chicago law school excessively commerce clause interstate commerce dormant commerce clause richard a epstein

04.06.2022 The State of Cannabis NewsHour

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 6, 2022 59:30

Rico Lamitte Mother rubs chilli powder on his eyes for cannabis addictionJason Beck "We'll Have to Close the Doors": DC Cannabis Gifting Services Say New Legislation Would Obliterate Recreational SalesGretchen Gailey Schumer Talking To GOP To ‘See What They Want' In Marijuana Legalization Bill Coming This MonthMenaka Mahajan Feeding Cows Hemp Helps Them Chill Out, Federally Funded Study FindsVictoria Litman Skill, training gaps are obstacles for NYS cannabis workforceGuy Rocourt‘ High life': Cannabis-infused farm listed on AirbnbRoz McCarthy Cannabis amnesty boxes' rarely used at O'Hare, Midway airports, records showChristopher Smith Woman dies in east London after eating ‘cannabis sweet'Brandon Dorsky California Lawmakers Consider Legislation to Increase Consumer Warnings on Cannabis LabelsShalina K. Pannu, Esq. Plaintiff's Assert Illinois' Cannabis License Process is Violating the Dormant Commerce Clause!

cannabis esq midway violating plaintiffs nys newshour dormant commerce clause

Constitution of the United States: The Second Amendment: Supreme Court cases

Supreme Court Opinions

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 14, 2022 15:02

McDonald v City of Chicago. On June 28, 2010, the Court in McDonald v City of Chicago, (2010), held that the Second Amendment was incorporated, saying that "t is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition. Four of the five justices in the majority voted to do so by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the fifth justice, Clarence Thomas, voted to do so through the amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause. Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, noted that the Privileges or Immunities Clause refers to "citizens" whereas the Due Process Clause refers more broadly to any "person", and therefore Thomas reserved the issue of non-citizens for later decision. After McDonald, many questions about the Second Amendment remain unsettled, such as whether non-citizens are protected through the Equal Protection Clause. In People v Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald: Two years later, in McDonald v City of Chicago, (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense"; that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right" (emphasis in original)(quoting Heller); and that "self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day". Caetano v Massachusetts. On March 21, 2016, in a per curiam decision the Court vacated a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense. The Court reiterated that the Heller and McDonald decisions saying that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding", that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States", and that the protection is not restricted to "only those weapons useful in warfare". The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v Heller, (2008) and includes any "eapo of offense" or "thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands", that is "carrying. ... for the purpose of offensive or defensive action". New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v City of New York, New York. The Court heard New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v City of New York, New York on December 2, 2019, to decide whether a New York City ordinance that prevents the transport of guns, even if properly unloaded and locked in containers, from within city limits to outside of the city limits is unconstitutional. The New York Rifle & Pistol Association challenged the ordinance on the basis of the Second Amendment, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the right to travel. However, as the city had changed its rule to allow transport while the case was under consideration by the Court, the Court ruled the case moot in April 2020, though it remanded the case so the lower courts could review the new rules under the petitioner's new claims.

Questions of Federal Preemption

The Law School Toolbox Podcast: Tools for Law Students from 1L to the Bar Exam, and Beyond

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 9, 2021 80:10

Several states are considering how to regulate the content moderation practices of social media and other tech platforms. Some are focused primarily on protecting a wider range of expressible user viewpoints, while other states are concerned with strengthening incentives on platforms to engage in more aggressive moderation of potentially harmful speech. Some states are also pursuing antitrust enforcement actions against some tech platforms. Such state level regulation of national – even global – platforms, raises the prospect of a patchwork of competing state regulatory frameworks. States have their own antitrust statutes that can differ from federal standards, and historically have had authority to regulate and set boundaries for material that cannot be published, such as libel, and content harmful to minors. How should we think about state regulatory efforts when applied to technology platforms - is regulatory federalism likely to be beneficial, or should federal law preempt such efforts? What role can or should the FCC play in preempting such state regulation? How does the Dormant Commerce Clause affect state level efforts to regulate content and content moderation policies of social media within state borders?Featuring confirmed speakers to date:-- Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission-- Daniel Francis, Furman Fellow, New York University School of Law-- Paul Watkins, Managing Director, Patomak Global Partners-- Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

judge states managing directors federal commissioners new york university appeals circuit fcc united states court brendan carr preemption dormant commerce clause katsas gregory g

298: Listen and Learn -- The Dormant Commerce Clause

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2021 17:32

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! In today's episode from our "Listen and Learn" series, we're focusing on the Dormant Commerce Clause, also known as the Negative Commerce Clause. We previously discussed the Commerce Clause in episode 215. In this episode we discuss: A brief review of the Commerce Clause When the Dormant Commerce Clause comes into play What constitutes an unduly burdensome regulation The market participant exception Other issues tested alongside the Dormant Commerce Clause Analyzing two hypos from previous California bar exams How to approach questions where it's possible to argue either way Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) Tutoring for Law School Success (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/tutoring-for-law-school-success/) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2018 (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/Essay-Questions-and-Answers.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2005 (https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/February%202005%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf) Podcast Episode 215: Listen and Learn – The Commerce Clause (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-215-listen-and-learn-the-commerce-clause/) Podcast Episode 295: Listen and Learn – Due Process and Equal Protection (Con Law) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-295-listen-and-learn-due-process-and-equal-protection-con-law/) Favorite Con Law Supplement: Chemerinsky's Constitution Law: Principles and Policies (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/favorite-con-law-supplement-chemerinskys-constitutional-law-principles-and-policies/) First-Hand Guide to 1L Courses – Constitutional Law (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/first-hand-guide-to-1l-courses-constitutional-law/) Download the Transcript (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-298-listen-and-learn-the-dormant-commerce-clause/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

california policies portals tutoring commerce clause dormant commerce clause law school success

135: Listen and Learn -- The Dormant Commerce Clause

The Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast: Pass the Bar Exam with Less Stress

Play Episode Listen Later May 24, 2021 17:32

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, in our "Listen and Learn" series, we're focusing on the Dormant Commerce Clause, also known as the Negative Commerce Clause. We previously discussed the Commerce Clause in episode 108. In this episode, we discuss: A brief review of the Commerce Clause When the Dormant Commerce Clause comes into play What constitutes an unduly burdensome regulation The market participant exception Other issues tested alongside the Dormant Commerce Clause Analyzing two hypos from previous California bar exams How to approach questions where it's possible to argue either way Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2018 (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/Essay-Questions-and-Answers.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2005 (https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/February%202005%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf) Podcast Episode 108: Listen and Learn – The Commerce Clause (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-108-listen-and-learn-the-commerce-clause/) Podcast Episode 117: Listen and Learn – Due Process and Equal Protection (Con Law) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-117-listen-and-learn-due-process-and-equal-protection-con-law/) Favorite Con Law Supplement: Chemerinsky’s Constitution Law: Principles and Policies (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/favorite-con-law-supplement-chemerinskys-constitutional-law-principles-and-policies/) How to Approach Constitutional Law MBE Questions (https://barexamtoolbox.com/how-to-approach-constitutional-law-mbe-questions/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-135-listen-and-learn-the-dormant-commerce-clause/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

california policies portals commerce clause dormant commerce clause

Deep Dive 128 – Can States Trump Interstate Commerce?

RTP's Free Lunch Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 27, 2020 67:10

Asserting their sovereign interests or "states' rights," many states are increasingly attempting to inject state officials' policy preferences on national and global issues through state legislation or regulation on myriad subjects from energy, environmental, immigration, drugs, labor, climate, health, food, to transportation and more. In what ways does the Interstate Commerce Clause, or the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, limit the scope of the constitutionally legitimate spheres of these kinds of state legislation or regulation? In other words, what is the meaning of federalism in a constitutional system designed to facilitate interstate commerce? And, what is the proper judicial role, if any, in policing state laws that seek to interfere or have the effect of interfering with the free flow of commerce among the several states?These questions are subject to considerable debate, with significant disagreement even within normally like-minded camps. Some conservatives and liberals alike think there is no such thing as an enforceable Dormant Commerce Clause. Others with various ideological priors view the Dormant Commerce Clause as invalidating only state laws that discriminate in favor of in-state activity over activities in other states. Another view posits that the Dormant Commerce Clause is broader than a non-discrimination principle and should be used to invalidate state laws that unduly burden or interfere with the flow of interstate commerce. And still others take views in between or beyond these positions.Responding to Professor Donald Kochan's recent essay in the Notre Dame Law Review Reflection, "The Meaning of Federalism in a System of Interstate Commerce: Free Trade Among the Several States,"—an essay that emphasizes that commerce facilitation was a primary driver of the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution—the panelists explore examples of current state laws and regulations that expand a state's reach into national and international affairs, and they analyze and debate the different interpretations of the Constitution regarding the proper role of the judiciary in evaluating these laws.Featuring:- Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law- James Coleman, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law- Donald Kochan, Professor of Law and Deputy Executive Director, Law and Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

director donald trump law professor system meaning states deep dive associate professor responding constitution case western reserve university state government confederation federalism deputy executive director asserting antonin scalia law school interstate commerce dormant commerce clause economics center administrative law & regulatio regulatory transparency projec regproject

Deep Dive 128 – Can States Trump Interstate Commerce?

RTP's Free Lunch Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 27, 2020 67:10

Asserting their sovereign interests or "states' rights," many states are increasingly attempting to inject state officials' policy preferences on national and global issues through state legislation or regulation on myriad subjects from energy, environmental, immigration, drugs, labor, climate, health, food, to transportation and more. In what ways does the Interstate Commerce Clause, or the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, limit the scope of the constitutionally legitimate spheres of these kinds of state legislation or regulation? In other words, what is the meaning of federalism in a constitutional system designed to facilitate interstate commerce? And, what is the proper judicial role, if any, in policing state laws that seek to interfere or have the effect of interfering with the free flow of commerce among the several states?These questions are subject to considerable debate, with significant disagreement even within normally like-minded camps. Some conservatives and liberals alike think there is no such thing as an enforceable Dormant Commerce Clause. Others with various ideological priors view the Dormant Commerce Clause as invalidating only state laws that discriminate in favor of in-state activity over activities in other states. Another view posits that the Dormant Commerce Clause is broader than a non-discrimination principle and should be used to invalidate state laws that unduly burden or interfere with the flow of interstate commerce. And still others take views in between or beyond these positions.Responding to Professor Donald Kochan's recent essay in the Notre Dame Law Review Reflection, "The Meaning of Federalism in a System of Interstate Commerce: Free Trade Among the Several States,"—an essay that emphasizes that commerce facilitation was a primary driver of the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution—the panelists explore examples of current state laws and regulations that expand a state's reach into national and international affairs, and they analyze and debate the different interpretations of the Constitution regarding the proper role of the judiciary in evaluating these laws.Featuring:- Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law- James Coleman, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law- Donald Kochan, Professor of Law and Deputy Executive Director, Law and Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

director donald trump law professor system meaning states deep dive associate professor responding constitution case western reserve university state government confederation federalism deputy executive director asserting antonin scalia law school interstate commerce dormant commerce clause economics center administrative law & regulatio regulatory transparency projec regproject

Episode II: It's Nothing Personal, It's Just Retaliation.

Law & Society Talk

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 8, 2020 49:05

Law & Society Talk is back with a riveting discussion about the finale to America's least favorite soap opera: Impeachment. We also touch upon President Trump's head start to Spring Cleaning with the recent dismissal of several key impeachment witnesses. And if that's not enough for you, Editors-in-Chief Vincenzo Guido and Matthew Chakov consider whether Congress is ready to give marijuana law a brand new look and whether Associate Editor Catherine Tran will ever be able to convince Matt to love the Dormant Commerce Clause as much as she does. Connect with Cornell Undergraduate Law & Society Review: Facebook: www.facebook.com/CULSReview/ LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/cornellu…ndsocietyreview/ DISCLAIMER: This podcast is meant solely for the purposes of discourse and discussion and should not be construed to be any form of legal advice or counsel.

america donald trump law congress impeachment spring cleaning editors retaliation nothing personal dormant commerce clause

Go Home Admin Law, You're Drunk

Supreme Court decision syllabus (SCOTUS)

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 21, 2019 44:33

It's a tough week for small government, as the Auer doctrine, the 21st Amendment, and local business associations all took one on this chin from the Supreme Court. Brett and Nazim discuss agency deference in Kisor v. Wilkie, and the Dormant Commerce Clause's effect on residency requirements for alcohol licenses in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Board v. Thomas. Law starts at (10:20).

TN wine & spirits v Thomas (21st Amendment / DCC)

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2019 13:03

Under the 21st amendment and the dormant commerce clause, Tennessee’s two-year residency requirement for new alcohol sales licensing is unconstitutional.

tennessee wine supreme court spirits scotus 21st amendment dormant commerce clause

Courthouse Steps Preview: NYSRPA v. City of NY

Play Episode Listen Later May 22, 2019 43:23

New York City issues permits allowing authorized persons to register guns to keep at home for self-protection, but the city’s law makes it a crime to remove registered firearms from that home for any reason except to transport them to one of seven city-approved firing ranges. New York City’s law does not allow taking a gun outside the home in any condition, even if it is unloaded in a car truck, and even if the owner merely wants to take the gun to another home. The Supreme Court held in two landmark decisions, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right held by individual American citizens. But both of those cases involved citizens who wanted a single handgun in their house for home protection, leaving myriad questions for future cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld New York City’s law, claiming that the court was applying intermediate scrutiny. In this case, the Supreme Court will now decide whether the Second Amendment extends outside the home, and whether the Big Apple’s law must be struck down as unconstitutional. The law is also being challenged as violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause and the right to interstate travel. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280 in the Supreme Court of the United States. Featuring: Kenneth Klukowski, General Counsel, American Civil Rights Union and Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Courthouse Steps Preview: NYSRPA v. City of NY

The Amazing Seller Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later May 22, 2019 43:23

New York City issues permits allowing authorized persons to register guns to keep at home for self-protection, but the city’s law makes it a crime to remove registered firearms from that home for any reason except to transport them to one of seven city-approved firing ranges. New York City’s law does not allow taking a gun outside the home in any condition, even if it is unloaded in a car truck, and even if the owner merely wants to take the gun to another home. The Supreme Court held in two landmark decisions, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right held by individual American citizens. But both of those cases involved citizens who wanted a single handgun in their house for home protection, leaving myriad questions for future cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld New York City’s law, claiming that the court was applying intermediate scrutiny. In this case, the Supreme Court will now decide whether the Second Amendment extends outside the home, and whether the Big Apple’s law must be struck down as unconstitutional. The law is also being challenged as violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause and the right to interstate travel. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280 in the Supreme Court of the United States. Featuring: Kenneth Klukowski, General Counsel, American Civil Rights Union and Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute

TAS 642: SALES TAX and Best Practices for Ecommerce and Amazon Sellers (2019 Edition)

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 5, 2019 48:24

Is your ecommerce business prepared to handle new sales tax changes that multiple states are adopting? Have you been worried about sales tax compliance and find yourself desperately looking for answers? If so, you’ve come to the right place! On this episode of The Amazing Seller, you’ll hear from Scott and his guest, Martina Chavez from Avalara. In her conversation with Scott, Martina talks about the recent Supreme Court ruling involving Wayfair, the solutions that Avalara has created for sellers, what you need to do to make sure your business is in compliance, and much more. Don’t let the stress of tax stuff distract you! Get the critical information you by listening to this episode! What happened with the Wayfair case? If you avidly follow ecommerce news, it's likely that you’ve heard of the Supreme Court case involving the ecommerce business, Wayfair. For those of you who missed the big news, here is what happened in that case. Basically, the ruling decided that states may charge sales tax on purchases made from out-of-state sellers, even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the taxing state. This was a major change overturning a case from 1992 which stated that the Dormant Commerce Clause barred states from compelling retailers to collect sales or use taxes in connection with mail order or Internet sales made to their residents unless those retailers have a physical presence in the taxing state. If you are wondering if this new decision affects your ecommerce business and the state you operate out of, make sure to check out the resource that Martina and her team at Avalara put together, you can find it in the resources section at the end of this post. How new and seasoned sellers can make sure they are in compliance. Now that you have a basic idea of what happened with the Wayfair case, you’ll probably want to know how that impacts your ecommerce business. For sellers starting out, this process is easy, start by registering to collect sales tax in your current state (unless your state doesn’t collect sales tax). From there, depending on your volume of sales, new sellers should start the registration process for collecting sales tax in the most populated states like Texas, California, and Flordia. You can also wait and just watch where most of your sales are coming from and start the process in those states. For more seasoned sellers, the process will prove to me a bit more complicated but not impossible! Basically, follow the same steps as the new sellers need to follow, but you also need to respond to any letters that any states have sent you regarding sales tax compliance. Another good option for many seasoned sellers to submit a Volunteer Discolusre Application (VDA) that allows you to get into compliance with a large up-front sum of money that you have to pay. The information that Scott and Martina have provided regarding sales tax compliance is only a starting place for sellers like you. Make sure to consult with your professional accountant to ensure that your business is on the right track. Tax compliance solutions from Alvara. Let’s face it; all this tax talk is complicated, confusing, and often overwhelming. What if there was a way to cut through all the complexity and trust that all of your tax obligations were taken care of? Good news! The folks at Alvara have worked hard to create a whole line up of solutions that small business ecommerce sellers like you can use. You can let Avalara handle your sales tax compliance and get more accurate bookkeeping in the process. Avalara can automate sales tax rates, prep, filing, and payment. To hear more about Avalara and the amazing work they are doing to help small business owners, make sure to check out the link to their site located in the resources section below! OUTLINE OF THIS EPISODE OF THE AMAZING SELLER [0:03] Scott’s introduction to this episode of the podcast! [3:30] Scott welcomes his guest, Martina Chavez. [8:15] Martina talks about the recent case involving Wayfair. [17:15] Tax talk is scary only when there is no solution. Martina talks about solutions. [25:15] What should new sellers do to make sure they are in compliance with tax rules? [31:30] How current sellers can get their business into compliance with tax rules. [39:00] Martina talks about how Avalara can help sellers like you. [46:50] Closing thoughts from Scott. RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE Avalara's Resource on Sales Tax Nexus Rules Avalara’s Small Business Solutions Martina.chavez[at]avalara.com Shopify Magento

california texas internet supreme court best practices tax wayfair sales tax amazon sellers flordia avalara amazing seller dormant commerce clause alvara

Booze & Federalism

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 24, 2019 43:13

In honor of the Verona High School Debate Team (the East Coast's best High School Debate Team obv), Brett and Nazim debate the value of winning a boat, numbers, state flags, bacon, federalism, getting drunk, buying birth control on Amazon, Constitutional Amendments and Tennessee Wine and Spirits Assoc. v. Blair, which asks the Court whether the 21st Amendment supersedes the Dormant Commerce Clause. Law starts at (11:26).

amazon law court wine alcohol commerce east coast amendment booze prohibition clause licenses federalism dormant constitutional amendments nazim dormant commerce clause tennessee wine

The Tennessee Wine Case and the 21st Amendment

We The People

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 14, 2019 61:08

For We the People listeners enjoying wine this Valentine’s Day – we’re exploring the still-pending Supreme Court case Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair. This lawsuit was brought by Total Wine & More, a retail liquor giant, and the Ketchums, a family who moved to Tennessee hoping to open a liquor store. Both parties were denied retail liquor licenses because they hadn’t resided in Tennessee long enough. This episode examines a variety of technical but fascinating legal and constitutional questions at issue in the case, including the history of the 21st Amendment, the scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities clause. Two advocates involved in the case, Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice and John Neiman of the law firm Maynard Cooper, join host Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging discussion about it. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

tennessee institute supreme court amendment immunity privileges total wine jeffrey rosen 21st amendment dormant commerce clause tennessee wine

The Tennessee Wine Case and the 21st Amendment

We the People

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 14, 2019 61:08

For We the People listeners enjoying wine this Valentine’s Day – we’re exploring the still-pending Supreme Court case Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair. This lawsuit was brought by Total Wine & More, a retail liquor giant, and the Ketchums, a family who moved to Tennessee hoping to open a liquor store. Both parties were denied retail liquor licenses because they hadn’t resided in Tennessee long enough. This episode examines a variety of technical but fascinating legal and constitutional questions at issue in the case, including the history of the 21st Amendment, the scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities clause. Two advocates involved in the case, Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice and John Neiman of the law firm Maynard Cooper, join host Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging discussion about it. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

tennessee institute supreme court amendment immunity privileges total wine jeffrey rosen 21st amendment dormant commerce clause tennessee wine

Courthouse Steps: South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Decided

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2018 31:45

The Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce without congressional approval. Consistent with this doctrine, in 1967, the Supreme Court held that a state cannot require an out-of-state seller with no physical presence in that state to collect and revoke taxes for goods sold or shipped into the state. The Court affirmed this holding in 1992 and 2015. However, in 2015, Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion asking whether the Court should continue following precedent in light of additional dormant Commerce Clause cases and the recent significant technological and social changes that affect interstate commerce.In 2016, the South Dakota Legislature passed a law requiring sellers of “tangible personal property” who do not have a physical presence in the state to remit sales tax according to the same procedures as sellers who do have a physical presence. The act limited the obligation to sellers with gross revenue from sales in South Dakota over $100,000, or 200 or more separate transactions, within one year.The legislation's stated purpose was to help the state maintain revenue in the face of growing internet sales and a decrease in sales tax collections.Following the passage of the law, South Dakota sued many retailers who failed to comply. The state courts of South Dakota ruled for the retailers, considering themselves “duty bound to follow” the previous Supreme Court rulings. On June 21, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

court supreme court constitution consistent south dakota decided johns visiting professor state government courthouse federalism federalist society justice kennedy commerce clause dakota v wayfair dormant commerce clause south dakota legislature teleforum wayfair inc john s baker

Courthouse Steps: South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Decided

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2018 31:45

The Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce without congressional approval. Consistent with this doctrine, in 1967, the Supreme Court held that a state cannot require an out-of-state seller with no physical presence in that state to collect and revoke taxes for goods sold or shipped into the state. The Court affirmed this holding in 1992 and 2015. However, in 2015, Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion asking whether the Court should continue following precedent in light of additional dormant Commerce Clause cases and the recent significant technological and social changes that affect interstate commerce.In 2016, the South Dakota Legislature passed a law requiring sellers of “tangible personal property” who do not have a physical presence in the state to remit sales tax according to the same procedures as sellers who do have a physical presence. The act limited the obligation to sellers with gross revenue from sales in South Dakota over $100,000, or 200 or more separate transactions, within one year.The legislation's stated purpose was to help the state maintain revenue in the face of growing internet sales and a decrease in sales tax collections.Following the passage of the law, South Dakota sued many retailers who failed to comply. The state courts of South Dakota ruled for the retailers, considering themselves “duty bound to follow” the previous Supreme Court rulings. On June 21, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

court supreme court constitution consistent south dakota decided johns visiting professor state government courthouse federalism federalist society justice kennedy commerce clause dakota v wayfair dormant commerce clause south dakota legislature teleforum wayfair inc john s baker

The One SCOTUS Case That May Cost You Money

star wars republican party em all dormant commerce clause

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 25, 2018 46:37

That's right folks!! The Supreme Court is coming after your precious Amazon purchases, as the case of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. will decide whether adding State taxes to online purchases violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. Brett and Nazim discuss Federalism and the DCC at length, brag about living in a State that will be unaffected by the whole ordeal, and sing a weird amount. Law starts at (04:17).

BONUS EPISODE: “BlackManLockedInHisBasement.com” (Episode 45)

#FSCK 'Em All!

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 4, 2018 117:23

In this special bonus episode, join us for an hourlong conversation with my good friends James Hankins and Dave Foxx on topics including affirmative action in higher education, the future of the Republican Party, and an unplanned segue into Star Wars lore. Then in our #Law140 segment we talk about the Dormant Commerce Clause and … Continue reading "BONUS EPISODE: “BlackManLockedInHisBasement.com” (Episode 45)" The post BONUS EPISODE: “BlackManLockedInHisBasement.com” (Episode 45) appeared first on #FSCK 'Em All!.

FULL: Another Huge Pick? - 2/1/17

Pat & Stu

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 1, 2017 90:29

NEWSFLASH: Stu wants to be wrong with everything on Donald Trump! “Liberal” Donald Trump came over to the conservative and constitutional side and won without Stu's vote in 2016. Now Stu is hoping that Trump does all he needs to do to win re-election WITH his vote in 2020.-A laundry list of prominent Democrats had approved of Judge Neil Gorsuch in the past. The list includes Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden. What does this mean for the left's latest arguments against Trump's appointee for the Supreme Court?-The claim has been made that Gorsuch is so popular that Democrats from pro-Trump states will be pressured to confirm him, and at least a handful of Democrats will comply.What is the Chevron Deference? How about the Dormant Commerce Clause? Where does the new appointee stand on these interpretations? Where does he stand on imminent domain and the fourth amendment?-Jeffy warns us of an impending horror, as our country is facing a massive shortage of bacon. How could this seemingly innocuous development affect the approval ratings of Donald Trump?-The approval ratings for Donald Trump's executive order on immigration are very surprising given the amount of blow back from the mainstream media. A new study shows that 48 percent of respondents approved of the plan while just 41 percent disapproved. -Nancy Pelosi gave a speech in which she attempted to rally support among liberals against justice Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court. The guys examine each point she makes and examine the facts about the man they view as the ideal replacement for the late Antonin Scalia.-Glenn Beck joins the program with his latest edition of 'hiSTORY', in which he tells the rags-to-riches story of the great Hollywood film director, Frank Capra.-Former New York senator and certified pervert Anthony Weiner could face charges of child porn. Stu and Jeff discuss his antics during the election cycle and ponder whether the Comey Letter really did cost Hillary Clinton the election.-The guys eat cereal crafted to taste like famous Girl Scout Cookie flavors in the latest edition of SPOONS!Listen to Pat & Stu for FREE on TheBlaze Radio Network from 5p-7p ET, Mon. through Fri. www.theblaze.com/radioTwitter: @PatandStuFacebook: PatandStu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

history donald trump hollywood joe biden barack obama supreme court democrats hillary clinton nancy pelosi chuck schumer girl scout cookies spoons glenn beck neil gorsuch frank capra antonin scalia anthony weiner another huge dormant commerce clause theblaze radio network

Pat and Stu 2/1/17 - Hour 1

Pat & Stu

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 1, 2017 46:09

NEWSFLASH: Stu wants to be wrong with everything on Donald Trump! “Liberal” Donald Trump came over to the conservative and constitutional side and won without Stu's vote in 2016. Now Stu is hoping that Trump does all he needs to do to win re-election WITH his vote in 2020.-A laundry list of prominent Democrats had approved of Judge Neil Gorsuch in the past. The list includes Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden. What does this mean for the left's latest arguments against Trump's appointee for the Supreme Court?-The claim has been made that Gorsuch is so popular that Democrats from pro-Trump states will be pressured to confirm him, and at least a handful of Democrats will comply. Stu and Jeff agree that Trump did not nominate a crazy person, he went with someone who can debate everyone and has a libertarian streak.What is the Chevron Deference? How about the Dormant Commerce Clause? Where does the new appointee stand on these interpretations? Where does he stand on imminent domain and the fourth amendment?-Jeffy warns us of an impending horror, as our country is facing a massive shortage of bacon. How could this seemingly innocuous development affect the approval ratings of Donald Trump?Listen to Pat & Stu for FREE on TheBlaze Radio Network from 5p-7p ET, Mon. through Fri. www.theblaze.com/radioTwitter: @PatandStuFacebook: PatandStu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

donald trump joe biden barack obama supreme court democrats hillary clinton chuck schumer neil gorsuch dormant commerce clause theblaze radio network

The Consitutionality of Income Taxes