undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmalwarebytess3y ago0 comments

Here's an example.

California passes a law, and because doing business in California is good for the bottom line they will comply with the law, and in so doing set a new defacto national standard. But, if this burden becomes too onerous, the business can simply not do business with California or move out of California. But, California is such a large market it's quite a high burden to reach.

0 comments

CountSessine3y ago

This isn't epwr's claim. His claim is that Washington has written and passed a law that binds Microsoft's operations outside Washington state, which I'm pretty sure would violate the commerce clause.

dragonwriter3y ago

> His claim is that Washington has written and passed a law that binds Microsoft's operations outside Washington state, which I'm pretty sure would violate the commerce clause.

The commerce clause does not prevent states from having laws which impact interstate commerce unless:

(1) They are preempted by federal exercise of commerce clause powers (though that's really a supremacy clause issue), or

(2) they discriminate against or excessively burden interstate commerce (the dormant commerce clause doctrine).

CountSessine3y ago

Wouldn't this qualify under the dormant clause if it protected firms in Washington state by making it uneconomical for recruiting firms from elsewhere in the country to enter the Washington labour market? This isn't just about listing wages for positions in Washington state - it would be viral and would contaminate a business's operations everywhere. It would be very cozy for recruiting businesses that operate in Washington state exclusively.

This would kind of be like the Exxon case, but if Maryland had tried to prevent Exxon from having gas stations ANYWHERE in the US if they started doing business in Maryland.

"Enter if you dare, but all your business in the rest of the nation will be affected and you will lose your competitive edge vis-a-vis recruiting firms that stay out of Washington!"

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsmalwarebytess3y ago0 comments

Here's an example.

0 comments

CountSessine3y ago

This isn't epwr's claim. His claim is that Washington has written and passed a law that binds Microsoft's operations outside Washington state, which I'm pretty sure would violate the commerce clause.

dragonwriter3y ago

> His claim is that Washington has written and passed a law that binds Microsoft's operations outside Washington state, which I'm pretty sure would violate the commerce clause.

The commerce clause does not prevent states from having laws which impact interstate commerce unless:

(1) They are preempted by federal exercise of commerce clause powers (though that's really a supremacy clause issue), or

(2) they discriminate against or excessively burden interstate commerce (the dormant commerce clause doctrine).

CountSessine3y ago

This would kind of be like the Exxon case, but if Maryland had tried to prevent Exxon from having gas stations ANYWHERE in the US if they started doing business in Maryland.

"Enter if you dare, but all your business in the rest of the nation will be affected and you will lose your competitive edge vis-a-vis recruiting firms that stay out of Washington!"

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse