Re:U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
by SlowRobotAhead on Monday June 25, 2018 @07:40PM
(#17396783)
>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.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
by gamblor956 on Monday June 25, 2018 @11:31PM
(#17397673)
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.
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.