←back to thread

295 points AndrewDucker | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
1. ggm ◴[] No.45047804[source]
The USA has a F(ederal) CC. Not S(tate) CC.

I appreciate that not all modern post 1776 democracies are the same, but in Australia, whose constitution was informed hugely by the US constitution, Federal communications law takes supremacy over states, and states laws cannot constrain trade between the states. There are exceptions, but you'd be in court. "trade" includes communications.

So ultimately, isn't this heading to the FCC, and a state-vs-federal law consideration?

-Not that it means a good outcome. With the current supreme court, who knows?

replies(2): >>45047963 #>>45047989 #
2. Manuel_D ◴[] No.45047963[source]
In theory, the US constitution forbids states from interfering with interstate commerce too.
replies(2): >>45047990 #>>45048029 #
3. cobbzilla ◴[] No.45047989[source]
> With the current supreme court, who knows?

In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh said it was likely unconstitutional (but apparently not obviously enough to enjoin it) [1]. So it's going into effect, then the lawsuit follows.

Similar laws in California, Arkansas and Ohio were all found unconstitutional, so I am hopeful. That said, these were all district court decisions, and all of them are being appealed. When they lose on appeal, they go to the Supreme Court for (hopefully) the final smack-down.

Interestingly, reading the summary MS HB1126 [2], this law is doing two things. It regulates companies and defines crimes.

States are allowed to set their own criminal codes. If Mississippi drops the mandate part and passes a new law that simply defines certain things as crimes with corresponding penalties, that law would probably be constitutional.

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a97_5h25.pdf

[2] https://legiscan.com/MS/bill/HB1126/2024

replies(2): >>45048279 #>>45048722 #
4. ggm ◴[] No.45047990[source]
<insert Yogi Berra quote about theory and practice here>
5. cobbzilla ◴[] No.45048029[source]
In theory yes, but in reality the "Dormant Commerce Clause" is weak protection.

We've let states set their own "internet services" taxes, making selling anything online in the US a regulatory nightmare. A third-party vendor to manage (and keep up with) the tax laws to stay compliant is basically required for anyone selling online, or risk the wrath of various state tax bodies.

6. userbinator ◴[] No.45048279[source]
then the lawsuit follows.

...and then the lawyers profit.

7. toast0 ◴[] No.45048722[source]
> States are allowed to set their own criminal codes. If Mississippi drops the mandate part and passes a new law that simply defines certain things as crimes with corresponding penalties, that law would probably be constitutional.

States have limits to what things they define as crimes. Defining certain type of trade to be criminal is regulating trade. And regulating interstate trade is reserved for Congress. Yet, many state laws criminalize some commerce, and case law has expanded interstate commerce to often include sales where the buyer, seller, and manufacturer are all in the same state... consistency is not a strength of our system.

replies(1): >>45050439 #
8. cobbzilla ◴[] No.45050439{3}[source]
I hope you are right!