To: An.American.Expatriate
The states have always had the soveriegn right to dictate commerce laws within the state - but if they DO allow other businesses from other states to engage in commerce in the state; all actors must be treated as equals - that is what the regulation of interstate commerce is all about. Indeed, without the clause, there would be anarchy in interstate trade.Can a state disallow interstate commerce, but allow intrastate commerce even though the out of state businesses meet all the same requirements as the local businesses, except for being out of state? IOW, could a state simply deny it's markets to businesses in other states in order to create a captive market for it's own industries?
20 posted on
07/15/2010 1:46:28 PM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
Can a state disallow interstate commerce, but allow intrastate commerce even though the out of state businesses meet all the same requirements as the local businesses, except for being out of state? IOW, could a state simply deny it's markets to businesses in other states in order to create a captive market for it's own industries? Theoretically, yes. Again, it is jurisdiction. Which laws apply if a conflict arises between an out of state business and an in state actor? Look at banks - physicians, bonded tradepeople, etc ... such participants must be licensed in most states in orer to engage in commere intrastate. Some get permits to be able to engange in commerce in other states - but EACH state has the right to dictate the terms. However, the terms must always be the same, whether the particpant is in state or out of state.
22 posted on
07/15/2010 2:13:04 PM PDT by
An.American.Expatriate
(Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson