[EBH]

In Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905), the Supreme Court held that Congress had the authority to regulate local commerce, as long as that activity could become part of a continuous “current” of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services.

Under this interpretation, California's law is interfering with the movement of goods and services. Congress or the President or other States need to step up in signal the violation of the Commerce Clause.

In the 1990s, the Rehnquist Court treated these New Deal cases as the high water mark of congressional power. In the cases of U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000), the Court confined this regulatory authority to intrastate economic activity. In addition, in a concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), Justice Scalia maintained that, under Lopez, "Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce." Interpretation Commerce Clause

[Yo-Yo]

Under this interpretation, California's law is interfering with the movement of goods and services. Congress or the President or other States need to step up in signal the violation of the Commerce Clause.

What you neglect to state is that the Federal Government granted California the ability to set pollution regulations that were stricter than the Federal standard, and that the Federal Government would enforce those tougher standards.

[Vaquero]

Possibly, but the Xiden stole-ministration and it’s inJustice department won’t do a thing.

[Who is John Galt?]

In addition, in a concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), Justice Scalia maintained that, under Lopez, "Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce."

It may be worth noting that Justice Clarence Thomas' minority opinion in Gonzalez stated that "if Congress can regulate [the noncommercial growing of marijuana for personal use] under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate anything — and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

[Brian Griffin]

The Article 8 commerce clause has to be considered in the light of the immediately following Article 9 slave clause.

Article 8 gave the Congress the power over the slave trade, but not over plantation labor management.

[Brian Griffin]

Congress can’t hand over any of its legislative power to a state or to a guy with a moustache or beard who is fond of ranting.

The legislative power of Congress is its alone to exercise.

California could of course outlaw high-particle emitting trucks on any of the roads it owns the right of way on.

[Brian Griffin]

We have ports in Florida.

[Blood of Tyrants]

They should step in, by they won’t. The Dems want you to feel pain and to hurt you economically so that you will beg for socialism.

[fruser1]

Not in violation per se, but it’s actions can be used to justify the feds nullifying those actions.

We’d need a non-RINO repub to do that though. Don’t expect any action soon.

[bert]

By abrogating Federal law, California has seceded from the Union