Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This isn't true...the interstate commerce clause may only regulate wholly intrastate commerce if the law regulates interstate commerce and the targeted intrastate transactions would affect the interstate commerce subject to regulation. See Gonzalez v. Raich (permitting the criminalization of marijuana farming of marijuana that could only legally be sold in-state because marijuana as a good could be sold across state borders).

There aren't any cases governing wholly-intrastate physical goods no such goods exist, and generally when attempting to regulate otherwise purely local commerce (i.e., restaurants and civil rights), it is generally not a case of federal powers but rather of civil rights.




>if the law regulates interstate commerce and the targeted intrastate transactions would affect the interstate commerce subject to regulation

Right, but the issue is that's so laughably wide that it's meaningless. Esp as the internet has made things easier, you can be certain it's legally arguable to "prove" that even a small time seller of some good is measurably impacting big company X.


No, it's not so laughably wise as to be meaningless. For example, the interstate commerce clause cannot regulate service transactions (healthcare, legal, accounting, etc.).

Esp as the internet has made things easier, you can be certain it's legally arguable to "prove" that even a small time seller of some good is measurably impacting big company X.

That's not how it works at all. But what do I know? I've only successfully practiced law for a decade in state and federal courts.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: