On 09/30/98, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Christopher A. Mohr <chrismohr[_at_]sprintmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't state anti-spam legislation be a violation of the commerce
> > clause?
>
> That was put forward in one of the newspaper articles that discussed
> the legislation the day after it was signed. I personally don't see
> it, or at least, I think it needs a much more careful argument before
> I'd accept it.
See ALA v. Pataki for such an argument.
> If I recollect properly, there is no blanket prohibition on states
> enacting laws that regulate commerce, even interstate commerce, that
> flows into their state.
States are prohibited from 1) blatantly discriminating against out of state commerce, 2) evenhandedly regulating commerce where the burden of the regulation exceeds the local benefits, and/or 3) regulating conduct wholly outside their borders, even if it has an effect within their borders.
> There are restrictions, for example, when a state regulation interferes
> with a federal regulatory scheme, but I don't see that.
That's actually a statutory preemption analysis, not commerce clause.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:32 GMT