otherwise Democrats are still without power to unilaterally pass laws
have there been any proposals to deal with this? bills that didnt make it out of committee?
something as simple as adding some contracts to the ban in the onion futures act I think is a mistake
Of all of the ridiculous things that qualify as interstate commerce: prediction, futures, and derivatives markets are squarely within the definition.
If we're stuck with endemic gun violence because of an 18th century definition of "well regulated militia" then there's no way a purely online marketplace counts as interstate commerce. How do you fit that on a horse, exactly?
Okay, so digital marketplaces aren't interstate commerce? Try again. Insurance markets? In what reality is "commerce" defined as exclusively-physical goods?
> well regulated militia
Anyone that spouts this immediately signals their lack of English knowledge, law insight, etc. Even RBG didn't attempt this argument because it's literally, obviously invalid.
The reality of pre-industrial America circa the writing of the Constitution, which we have decided defines the limit of interpreting the language in that document.
If we're going to do that with guns we should be consistent and do that with everything. Non-physical goods didn't exist back then, the founders didn't know what an internet was, therefore online "commerce" doesn't exist as far as the constitution is concerned.
>Anyone that spouts this immediately signals their lack of English knowledge, law insight, etc. Even RBG didn't attempt this argument because it's literally incorrect.
And yet, DC vs. Heller.
Did insurance markets and stock markets not exist back then? The Dutch East India Company is almost 200 years older than the United States.
Why the fuck can't you read?
> Why the fuck can't you read?
I'm not the one throwing "well-regulated militia" out as a serious argument (as if prefatory clauses somehow change the remainder of a sentence.) Why the fuck can't you read? Perhaps you should volunteer to be on the door-to-door confiscation squads.
Take it up with the Supreme Court then.
Labor is a commercial service that has existed back to prehistoric times.
Ultimately, it seems you are arguing originalism, which is an opinion of interpretation that a minority of justices hold.
I'm arguing that the Interstate Commerce clause was originally intended to apply to physical goods being transported across state lines.
You could transport physical money across state lines. You couldn't transport "a banking" across state lines.
You could transport horses, humans and machines. You couldn't transport "a labor."
Every one of these things comes down to some physical item that could be taxed as it crossed a border. That was the entire point of it.
So "data" and "information" don't count. Nothing exists that actually crosses state lines.
Not only was he was alive to see this clarified by SCOTUS in Gibbons v. Ogden, 7 years after he left the presidency -- in letters, he was himself arguing that congress should regulate shipping services.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-154...
Now, Ogden was arguing what you are -- that it only applied to the movement of physical goods -- but this was found to be the losing argument. And this was quite early on in that document's history.
so thats easy to square.
good news, the current Supreme Court has expressed interest in re-evaluating the New Deal era interpretations of the interstate commerce clause, in a way that could completely obliterate the Federal state and all of its agencies of the last 100 years
“omg I love SCOTUS now?”
The CFTC relied on rules about exempted commodities to grant itself the power to license the likes of Kalshi. The question is whether that’s a major question.
The question at hand here isn’t either of our points. The question is whether or not prediction markets are gambling with lipstick on.
when federal law is completely absent, states have the right to behave however they want, thats the 10th amendment
federal law is not absent, state laws are curbed, in its simplest interpretation
1. Preemption is not absolute, there is a framework of case law for applying it and it sometimes does allow states to have more restrictive laws.
2. The idea that this activity is legitimately regulated under federal law is contested. If CFTC stepped outside of their authority in approving it, then there is no basis for preemption.