Federal law enforcement vs. State laws (CA prop 64)

[drachillix]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

True. But the fact is that PA has a record of your sticker purchase, and basically just uses the sticker as a shorthand for law enforcement to weed out obviously-non-licensed boats.

Hypothetically could do something akin to postage stamps.

Sale of product without proper stamp/seal is an illegal sale. Such stamps could easily be sold with no record, last I heard the post office isn’t keeping track.

[md2000]

@Hari_Seldon

I would still like to see what happens if a state goes into court and asks what the constitutional warrant is to regulate a commodity that is produced and consumed inside said state and never crosses a state line. By contrast, it took an amendment to prohibit alcohol.

And Sessions is much more dangerous than people think.

IIRC, the last SCOTUS ACA decision had an interesting corollary - they agreed the mandatory insurance penalty was a tax; but also added a comment that the interstate commerce clause id not apply, whereas Obama’s argument had been their authority came from the widely overused Interstate Commerce clause. It seemed like Roberts was trying to put a lid on ICC.