US Federal control of interstate commerce.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Nava

Whack-a-Mole, you’re saying that slavery is illegal in all of the USA since that amendment was passed. Which is true.

But the question from Northern Piper was “which laws existed which specifically restricted slave trade between states, when slavery was legal in part of the USA?” Your answer and his question are about different time periods.

Ah…ok…

Gotcha…

My bad.

I would assume you could trade slaves among states where slavery was legal.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Missed the edit window (really wish it was 10 minutes):

I do not know if there were federal laws preventing trade in slaves but if we consider today we can see states where marijuana is legal but there can be no interstate trade.

I really do not know if we can compare the two…just tossing it out there as a modern example of state versus federal law.

[Little_Nemo]

@KarlGauss

My question, then, is there any way that the states create a sound (Constitutional) argument to halt the Feds from interfering? Could they claim that their citizens’ medical needs should prevail? Did the founders wish that there would be situations where the federal government would be acting in a ‘negative monopoly’ position and actually prohibiting outright interstate commerce? If not, could that form the basis of an argument?

The answer is a pretty solid no. The supremacy clause says that federal laws override state laws. And regulating interstate commerce, which this clearly is, is explicitly listed as one of the areas where the federal government has authority. So there’s no constitutional means for states to force the federal government to repeal these laws.

That said, this is also a political issue. The people who are electing state legislators who are legalizing marijuana are also electing the national legislators who are banning its interstate trade. At some point, this contradiction will be reconciled. As the voters become more accepting of marijuana sales, Congress will follow the national mood and repeal restrictions on sales.

[Northern_Piper]

Yes, Nava has explained my question. Thanks, Nava - apologies for not framing it clearly.

Two posters have cited federal law restricting inter-state trade in slaves, as an example of the scope of the federal commerce power. Obviously, that would have been before the 13th Amendment.

I’m not familiar with any federal statute that restricted inter-state trade in slaves.

I’m just asking what law or laws the other two posters are citing?

The only federal law I can think of was the Fugitive Slave Law, which actually fostered inter-state slavery.

[WillFarnaby]

@Little_Nemo

The answer is a pretty solid no. The supremacy clause says that federal laws override state laws. And regulating interstate commerce, which this clearly is, is explicitly listed as one of the areas where the federal government has authority. So there’s no constitutional means for states to force the federal government to repeal these laws.

That said, this is also a political issue. The people who are electing state legislators who are legalizing marijuana are also electing the national legislators who are banning its interstate trade. At some point, this contradiction will be reconciled. As the voters become more accepting of marijuana sales, Congress will follow the national mood and repeal restrictions on sales.

The original intent and understanding of the ratifiers should not be dismissed. They were concerned about inter-state taxes being levied by the states. The power to “regulate” interstate trade was included to prevent states from doing this. The federal government is actually working directly against the original intent of the clause by restricting weed trade across borders.