Constitutional Law was not my best subject in law school, but I am pretty darn confident that the Commerce Clause was meant to strip individual states from exercising their own international-trade policies.
Shame on the Minnesota House of Reps.
(HT to Dan Rothschild.)
Share
{ 20 comments }
While I agree that it is a silly law, I don't think the Minnesota House of Representatives is "exercising [its] own international-trade policies." It is not like the House is ratifying a treaty.
The citizens of Minnesota have a legitimate right to decide — no matter how misguided their decisions may be — how their tax dollars are spent.
"The citizens of Minnesota have a legitimate right to decide — no matter how misguided their decisions may be — how their tax dollars are spent."
Except when unconstitutional or when it goes against Minnesota's own state laws.
The point that I was making is that simply disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Professor Boudreaux is incorrectly applying the commerce clause.
It may be protectionism, but it is misleading to call it "Unconstitutional Protectionism."
That's an odd thing for a "blue" state to do. I know isolationism runs on both sides of the aisle, but this isn't the kind of thing you would normally think of when thinking of Garrison Keillor, Al Franken, and Walter Mondale.
"The citizens of Minnesota have a legitimate right to decide — no matter how misguided their decisions may be — how their tax dollars are spent."
What article did you read? According to the article, this law restricts how people's own money is spent:
"Foreign-made American flags could soon be barred from Minnesota store shelves."
"… this isn't the kind of thing you would normally think of when thinking of Garrison Keillor, Al Franken, and Walter Mondale."
Why not? All those guys advocate constant meddling in the economic affairs of the people. This particular issue isn't something they would push for but their "active government" rhetoric certainly helps pave the way for such idiocy.
I was wrong.
I did misread the article. I thought that it said that the state government would only buy American made flags. I did not realize that it applied to everyone in the state, which I now agree is ludicrous. Hopefully, it won't make it past the State Senate.
I did find one quote humorous: "The bill passed after several amendments . . . [including requiring] all legislators who voted for the bill to buy American-made cars."
I retract my previous two posts.
My apologies for any confusion this may have caused.
"Why not? All those guys advocate constant meddling in the economic affairs of the people."
Because those very same people hate America, and would normally relish the American flag being made in some communist backwater. Although, you are correct that this style of market intervention is right up their alley, but doing anything remotely patriotic, no matter how idiotic or misguided, is definitely not their manner.
You have to love the righteous indignation on both sides of this bill. Some guy in China is gonna be inspired as he stitches stars onto our flag. Whatever… What's next? A bill banning pit bulls with the opposition giving speeches about how a pit bull can feed two families of 4 in a pinch?
"The bill passed after several amendments were turned back on procedural motions. They included attempts to criminalize flag burning ."
This almost sounds like a make work scheme Protesters buy a flag, burn it, buy another flag to burn.
Dan
Sorry gents,
And apologies to Don, but I believe that states can constitutionally restrict trade internally in certain goods to any degree they want.
I believe that the proposed bill does not fall under the commerce clause because it is restricting the sale of foreign made flags, and limiting the stocking of flags to those made in America, making the word home in the statement, "it's time to bring the flag home" mean America not Minnesota.
In my lifetime I have lived in states that banned or restricted sale of alcohol (Utah and Texas) and those bans withstood constitutional challenges.
I also think it would behoove the naysayers to think of how they view the abortion issue. The federal law says that physicians can "stock" abortions on their shelves if they choose, and the right wing says that it should be up to the state as to whether that should be allowed or banned.
When you think of goods and services you have to draw back and look at the whole picture and not fall into hypocrisy by saying we should be able to ban this but not that.
My humble opinion.
"That's an odd thing for a "blue" state to do. I know isolationism runs on both sides of the aisle, but this isn't the kind of thing you would normally think of when thinking of Garrison Keillor, Al Franken, and Walter Mondale."
Following a link on the MPR site, the sponsor was "State Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia," so a Democrat. Minnesota is actually not as purely liberal as in the past. While Republicans controlled the MN house after the 2004 elections, 68 to 66, (and had 81-53 after 2002) the DFLers took a strong majority, 85-49 in the 2006 elections.
I checked the roll call vote.
http://ww3.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/journals/2007-08/J0315030.htm
Checking against the list of members:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/housemembers.asp
It was very close to a party-line vote. Almost all Republicans voted against the ban, almost all DFLers voted to ban foreign-made US flags.
Upon tallying:
Republicans: 6 Yea, 42 Nay, 1 NV
DFL: 77 Yea, 4 Nay, 4 NV
for banning foreign-made flags.
Good god, is there nothing going on in the state of Minnesota. The proposition and election of such a piece of legislation is an enormous waste of the tax payers money. The bureaucrats should be ashamed of themesleves.
As a Minnesotan with affection for my state (sentimental and irrational though it may be, I'm almost ashamed. I say 'almost' because I never had much faith in the state government, and Minnesota has steadily been going down the path of increasing nanny-statism and government interventionism for some time now.
Also, I'm suprised at the suprise of Ray G at a 'blue state' going for this sort of thing. The idea that the left is less steeped in nationalist b.s. comes from a caricature created by Republican aparatchiks and, as far as I can tell, doesn't reflect reality, with the exception of the 'fringe' left. Indeed, American progressivism is steeped in militarism and nationalism- just look at its great forefather, Teddy Roosevelt.
As a fellow Minnesotan (and long time reader/lurker of Cafe Hayek), I haven't even heard of this bill before I read it here, I haven't heard a peep from the local newspaper or TV coverage or anything; it's like it is a non-issue.
And yes, I agree with Nico–I think this is just a token effort to appeal to "Patriotic 'Merikans" via Protectionism. Also, it is clearly a Partisan issue, one I hope will die in the Senate.
I think that the repeal of prohibition (23rd amendment?) allowed states to regulate commerce involving alcohol, even interstate commerce, but maybe they still can't discriminate against other states (wasn't there a recent case out-of-state vinters selling their wares over the internet?).
If a state bans sales of foreign produced goods, isn't that regulating interstate commerce, which is delegated to the US Congress?
Does anyone know if states that allow for the deduction of the IRC secion 199 domestic production activities deduction are discriminating against interstate commerce? If so, who would sue? Who would be damaged and have standing?
Chance;
I know how you feel. If I want to find out anything remotely controversial or embarrasing to the Left in AZ, I have to go to a locally ran blog. He does a decent enough job, but he's a total party hack himself, but from the other side.
"If a state bans sales of foreign produced goods, isn't that regulating interstate commerce, which is delegated to the US Congress?"
Assuming for the moment that it is an interstate commerce issue, the states can still act in areas where Congress hasn't. I don't know whether this area is dormant, or even if it is, whether this particular act would pass muster. All I'm pointing out is that the Commerce Clause delegation of that power to Congress still allows some room for the states to regulate interstate commerce.
That said, I think Prof. Boudreaux is referring to the foreign nations part of the Commerce Clause, rather than the insterstate part, and Art. I, section 10, paragraph 2 supports his position pretty well:
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws…"