That doesn't follow from what we do agree on - and the dictionary and FR usage contradict it.
Gobbledygook. If the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter, their ruling stands.
And yet can be unconstitutional, as the dictionary and FR usage show. Your insistence that I use your personal dictionary gets ever sillier.
Of course they're not "discriminating with" federal laws - what would that even mean?
I'll rephrase. State laws legalizing marijuana are not conflicting with and discriminating against federal laws?
As I said, 'Obviously "conflicting and discriminating state legislation" means conflicting with and discriminating against other states and their laws.'
The goal of "uniformity of regulation" cannot be met if states are allowed to set the rules.
You prove too much - complete uniformity of regulation would require that the feds set ALL rules.
The entire quotation makes clear that the purpose of the Commerce Clause is to prevent state-versus-state battles, and that not all nonuniformity qualifies as such: "Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'" (emphasis added)
Then you can quote it to the contrary.
If the Shreveport ruling only applied to shipping rates, the Wickard court couldn't have applied it to wheat.
Still wrong - as I said, "That a later court broadens an earlier narrow ruling makes the earlier ruling itself no less narrow."
That intrastate control is having any less success than interstate control is utterly unproven.
Nebraska and Oklahoma would disagree.
Nebraska and Oklahoma offer as evidence only the assertion that "Plaintiff States’ law enforcement encounters [Colorado] marijuana on a regular basis as part of day-to-day duties" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/250506006/Nebraska-Oklahoma-lawsuit) - not even a pretense of showing that Colorado pot has added to rather than displaced other sources of pot. Color me unimpressed.
State regulation, and airlines' voluntary cooperation, spring to the mind of any true conservative.
Sure. Each of the 50 states could have their own aircraft control system for intrastate flights, in addition to the FAA controlling interstate flights. Takeoffs and landings would be a challenge. You'd prefer that?
A challenge? Oh, fetch the smelling salts - much better that we abandon the Founders' vision in favor of a federal Leviathan.
What's next? The FDA?
Yes, they also should stay out of intrastate commerce - as little of that as there may be in food and drugs.
Got it. Does that mean we can ignore the law?
"You prove too much - complete uniformity of regulation would require that the feds set ALL rules."
Not at all. Only where the feds are regulating interstate commerce.
"The entire quotation makes clear that the purpose of the Commerce Clause is to prevent state-versus-state battles"
Yes, but not necessarily by Congress' intervention. For decades, states resolved issues between themselves in a lower federal court using the "dormant" commerce clause -- Congress can't get involved in every petty dispute between states.
"Thus, in a dormant Commerce Clause case, a court is initially concerned with whether the law facially discriminates against out-of-state actors or has the effect of favoring in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests."
This would apply perfectly to the Shreveport Rate Cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court only got involved in this case because Congress was actively regulating interstate rates. So the court ruled they could also regulate intrastate rates.