08 Mar 14
Originally posted by no1marauder"To say that any state can restrict deliveries into their State because the sale of that product is only intrastate commerce is to render the Commerce Clause an absolute nullity."
You must be joking.
ALL interstate commerce presupposes that the sale will be in a different State from the production. To say that any state can restrict deliveries into their State because the sale of that product is only intrastate commerce is to render the Commerce Clause an absolute nullity.
Who said anything about intrastate commerce? That is your invention. Cali is only regulating what may be legally sold in Cali. It is not regulating interstate commerce. Alabama has 48 other states and numerous foreign countries in which to sell their eggs. Actually my version renders the Commerce Clause back to its textual meaning, which is not that all that States are forced to accept what is shipped to them unless Congress or some agency prohibits it.
08 Mar 14
Originally posted by normbenignPlease buy a dictionary. "Intrastate Commerce" isn't my "invention"; it is a description of commerce that takes place solely within a State. The shipping of goods into a State IS interstate commerce.
"To say that any state can restrict deliveries into their State because the sale of that product is only intrastate commerce is to render the Commerce Clause an absolute nullity."
Who said anything about intrastate commerce? That is your invention. Cali is only regulating what may be legally sold in Cali. It is not regulating interstate commerce. Al ...[text shortened]... States are forced to accept what is shipped to them unless Congress or some agency prohibits it.
The Commerce Clause was specifically intended to stop such State practices which inhibited economic vitality and growth. Your ideas regarding the Commerce Clause are absurd and would render it completely nugatory.
08 Mar 14
Originally posted by normbenignI see no evidence that Maine or its farmers defied any such regulations.
"They do not apply to intrastate sales and delivery and such sales are regulated (properly) by the States."
On this I agree, but when Maine did this, FDA threatened action against the State and farmers defying their regulations.
If Cali voters chose to vote away their freedom of choice in eggs, I can see no reason for Federal intervention. Cali is ...[text shortened]... such actions, which accounts for gas pump prices being higher than anywhere else in the nation.
When one State violates the Constitution and another State or States objects, it is the duty of the Federal Courts to intervene. That is what is being done here. I'll be very surprised if Missouri and the other States don't prevail.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
08 Mar 14
Originally posted by normbenignTo your point on gas prices:
"They do not apply to intrastate sales and delivery and such sales are regulated (properly) by the States."
On this I agree, but when Maine did this, FDA threatened action against the State and farmers defying their regulations.
If Cali voters chose to vote away their freedom of choice in eggs, I can see no reason for Federal intervention. Cali is ...[text shortened]... such actions, which accounts for gas pump prices being higher than anywhere else in the nation.
I don't know if this 2008 document is still current, but I think it is. There is is federal law making Cali gas prices higher (fewer MPG due to oxygenation plus any net cost of the oxygenates).
(Oxygenates have oxygen, meaning to a chemist that they are already partly "burned" so their combustion, produces less net energy than the hydrocarbons in gasoline.)
Also, the total per gallon gasoline tax is about 22 cents higher than the national average of about 50 cents.
" Federal law currently requires all gasoline in areas with severe air pollution – including Southern California, the greater Sacramento area, and the San Joaquin Valley – to contain an oxygenated additive such as MTBE or ethanol. California’s cleaner-burning gasoline regulation, enacted by the Air Resources Board (ARB), allows but does not require the use of oxygenates."
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/cbgmtbe.htm
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States
08 Mar 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThe commerce clause isn't absolute or plenary. Its limitation is that it must only be about Commerce between foreign nations, other States or Indian tribes.
??????????????
See the Commerce Clause which specifically grants the power to regulate interstate commerce to Congress.
It doesn't say that Congress may force interstate commerce. If commerce is happening it must be subject to Congressional regulations. Cali simply doesn't want to participate, and that's where the tenth amendment asserts the State and the people's sovereignty over the central government (Congress).
Perhaps a silly example would clarify. What if the FDA, an appointee of Congress, prohibited the sale of non free range chicken eggs? That would be within their legal right, though silly. Conversely, they could ban the sale of eggs from caged chickens, just as silly, but within their legal right. One State doesn't alter interstate commerce with a ban on a product. Interstate commerce goes on in the rest of the States unabated.
08 Mar 14
Originally posted by no1marauderAfter Robert's ruling on the ACA, nothing the court does would surprise me.
I see no evidence that Maine or its farmers defied any such regulations.
When one State violates the Constitution and another State or States objects, it is the duty of the Federal Courts to intervene. That is what is being done here. I'll be very surprised if Missouri and the other States don't prevail.
On Maine, I suspect that nobody objected, or objected enough to go through the expense of pushing a case to SCOTUS.
Same thing on other issues. Somebody with deep pockets and a large interest has to gain standing, and then pursue a massively expensive course to SCOTUS. States are going to have to explain such expense to the voters.
09 Mar 14
Originally posted by normbenignHere's another "silly example":
The commerce clause isn't absolute or plenary. Its limitation is that it must only be about Commerce between foreign nations, other States or Indian tribes.
It doesn't say that Congress may force interstate commerce. If commerce is happening it must be subject to Congressional regulations. Cali simply doesn't want to participate, and that's where th ...[text shortened]... mmerce with a ban on a product. Interstate commerce goes on in the rest of the States unabated.
California says nothing made in Missouri can be sold in California. California is "simply not participating" according to your rationale and there fore that must be constitutional according to your "logic".
09 Mar 14
1 edit
Rather unsurprisingly the right wing, pro-business American Enterprise Institute (founded in 1938 to fight the New Deal) agrees with Missouri:
Quoting Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, the majority opinion in the Carbone case reads: “The central rationale for the rule against discrimination is to prohibit state or municipal laws whose object is local economic protectionism, laws that would excite those jealousies and retaliatory measures the Constitution was designed to prevent.” The courts have allowed for exceptions, when the state has no other way to meet “legitimate local concerns,” and when the effects on interstate commerce are “incidental.” California legislators tried to meet that exception by claiming that Californians had a public health interest in the legislation, but as the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service has pointed out while discussing the different methods of raising poultry: “The agency does not know of any valid scientific information that shows that any specific type of chicken has more or less salmonella bacteria than other poultry.” Not only that, but 180 million cartons of eggs stopped at a state border by the egg patrol are hardly incidental to commerce.
To put it simply, it has been the genius of the American system that we have free trade between states. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing in the Lopez decision, added that regulations that treat in-state and out-of-state businesses the same are still unconstitutional if they overly burden interstate commerce: “One element of our dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence has been the principle that the States may not impose regulations that place an undue burden on interstate commerce, even where those regulations do not discriminate between in-state and out-of-state businesses.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The California legislature has attempted to substitute the moral preening of the West Coast digestive elite for the choices that the rest of us make each time we buy conventionally produced eggs instead of readily available free range or organic eggs. As socially conscious as they may be, Californians don’t have that right. Koster and King are correct and both Congress and the courts should remind Californians of their constitutional responsibilities.
http://www.american.com/archive/2014/january/california2019s-chicken-law-and-the-commerce-clause
BTW, the article cites research saying the law will cause California egg prices to rise 20%, not double. If that is the price California voters are willing to pay to end what they perceive as cruel practices in egg farming that is their prerogative but the California Legislature's attempt to protect their egg farmers from competition from States that don't share those preferences is unconstitutional.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Mar 14
Originally posted by no1marauder"... California egg prices to rise 20%, not double. If that is the price California voters are willing to pay to end what they perceive as cruel practices in egg farming that is their prerogative ..."
Rather unsurprisingly the right wing, pro-business American Enterprise Institute (founded in 1938 to fight the New Deal) agrees with Missouri:
Quoting Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, the majority opinion in the Carbone case reads: [b]“The central rationale for the rule against discrimination is to prohibit state or municipal laws whose object is lo ...[text shortened]... egg farmers from competition from States that don't share those preferences is unconstitutional.
Perhaps we shall see if CA consumers will vote with their pocketbooks sufficiently to influence out-of-state suppliers. For eggsample, (sorry) if Macdonald's buys intrastate eggs that are traditionally produced, or Albertson's sells them to consumers, boycotts could occur.
One outcome might include egg sellers advertising their products as (in essence) compliant with the California law for intra-state eggs. This will attract a market segment. But I have an inkling that intrastate egg producers may try to use the courts to squelch this kind of advertising, if they can.
09 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357In case my meaning was unclear, the sentence should read:
"... California egg prices to rise 20%, not double. If that is the price California voters are willing to pay to end what they perceive as cruel practices in egg farming that is their prerogative ..."
Perhaps we shall see if CA consumers will vote with their pocketbooks sufficiently to influence out-of-state suppliers. For eggsample, (sorry) if Macdonald's ...[text shortened]... astate egg producers may try to use the courts to squelch this kind of advertising, if they can.
If that is the price California voters are willing to pay to end what they perceive as cruel practices in egg farming in their State that is their prerogative but the California Legislature's attempt to protect their egg farmers from competition from States that don't share those preferences is unconstitutional.
If Missouri's lawsuit is successful, the California regulations regarding pen sizes for chickens will remain in force inside California but eggs from other States produced in farms that do not conform to said standards will be allowed in. It will be up to consumers whether they want to favor local industries that in compliance; it's also possible some out of State producers will voluntarily comply so that they can advertise that fact in California. At present, the regulations and law are not scheduled to go into effect until next year.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI think your original wording is clear and is only reinforced by this. It helps me understand the current situation WRT the commerce clause and the willingness of red states to embrace it over the alleged sovereignty of a blue state.
In case my meaning was unclear, the sentence should read:
If that is the price California voters are willing to pay to end what they perceive as cruel practices in egg farming [b]in their State that is their prerogative but the California Legislature's attempt to protect their egg farmers from competition from States that don't share tho ...[text shortened]... fornia. At present, the regulations and law are not scheduled to go into effect until next year.[/b]
10 Mar 14
Originally posted by no1marauderFace it, Cali is being picked on due to the size of its market. If Wyoming or Rhode Island made the same ruling nobody would give a hoot.
Here's another "silly example":
California says nothing made in Missouri can be sold in California. California is "simply not participating" according to your rationale and there fore that must be constitutional according to your "logic".
Still interstate commerce goes on except for caged chicken eggs to Cali. It could well be a bonanza to producers in the other States of free range eggs.
10 Mar 14
Originally posted by JS357Was this a legislative initiative, or a referendum as suggested by No1?
I think your original wording is clear and is only reinforced by this. It helps me understand the current situation WRT the commerce clause and the willingness of red states to embrace it over the alleged sovereignty of a blue state.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Mar 14
Originally posted by normbenign"In 2008, California voters approved a ballot referendum requiring "colony cages" for laying hens. Lawmakers, worried that the law would place California producers at a competitive disadvantage, amended the law to require that all eggs sold in the state come from chickens raised in the large enclosures."
Was this a legislative initiative, or a referendum as suggested by No1?
http://www.businessrecord.com/Content/Law---Government/Law---Government/Article/Branstad-says-California-law-is-a-rotten-egg/164/788/62613
So the import requirement was not part of the referendum.
In CA, referendum means given (by the chicken s*** legislature) to the voters to decide, instead of doing their job. Proposition means put on the ballot by gathering signatures.