Thousands of Hispanics fleeing Arizona

[Questor]

Not that I'm agreeing with the idiotic boycotts, but how is a city saying that it won't give business to a contractor or sub-contractor based in Arizona a violation of the commerce clause?

Because, in aggregate, local and municipal contracts have an effect on interstate commerce, the benefits of this sort of behavior are clearly outweighed by their burdens, and the city and local governments are deliberately using their mechanisms to discriminate against another state. That's precisely the sort of thing that the Commerce Clause has been read to prevent.

I'm just curious, but has anyone sued LA yet on this? Doing some quick research, (and possibly relying too much on the voices on the internet that I am unable to form critical opinions of) the constitutionality seems to rest on the fact that in the cases involved, the cities are not acting as market regulators but market participants. There is some question of this, but it does not appear to be as cut and dried as you are implying here.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 633AADHMzg
http://themoderatevoice.com/72379/are-a ... itutional/

This makes sense to me as a layperson, since LA is not restraining anyone's trade but its own. If they made it a violation of the condition of a business license to do business with Arizona, then I think you'd have a slam dunk.

My guess is that a most this is an issue for Jerry Brown as Attorney General as it might violate lowest bidder laws.

... Or the US District Attorney, or anyone else involved in federal law enforcement.

Why isn't the Obama administration cracking down on these unconstitutional government acts?

Unless there's federal laws I'm unaware of, I'm not sure that the feds would have jurisdiction, as most (if not all) of the laws governing lowest bidder that I know of are state laws.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Because he doesn't want to be the modern political equivalent of the people who turned fire hoses and dogs on civil rights protesters. A living symbol of oppression and racism.

You're right. Forcing the government to operate without ignoring the constitution would make him a "living symbol of oppression and racism."

Under the circumstances, yes. "Constitutional" isn't a synonym for "not racist" you know. And I used the "fire hoses and dogs" example because I'm sure the people who did that would also have argued they were just enforcing the law.

More to the point, what I'm saying is a variation on the "politics" comments others are making; whether you like it or not, the Arizona law is clearly motivated by racism, and going along with it is collaborating with racists, and quite a few people are going to see it that way. If Obama cracks down, it'll be seen as him sucking up to racists which is hardly likely to be of political benefit to him.

[Questor]

Ghetto edit: The bottom of the above should read:

... Or the US District Attorney, or anyone else involved in federal law enforcement.

Unless there's federal laws I'm unaware of, I'm not sure that the feds would have jurisdiction, as most (if not all) of the laws governing lowest bidder that I know of are state laws.

[Broomstick]

Because he doesn't want to be the modern political equivalent of the people who turned fire hoses and dogs on civil rights protesters. A living symbol of oppression and racism.

You're right. Forcing the government to operate without ignoring the constitution would make him a "living symbol of oppression and racism."

Under the circumstances, yes. "Constitutional" isn't a synonym for "not racist" you know. And I used the "fire hoses and dogs" example because I'm sure the people who did that would also have argued they were just enforcing the law.

Yep, that's pretty much one of they things they said to justify beating up unarmed people back in the day - "we're just upholding the law". The sad thing? They were actually correct, that IS how the laws were back then. Legal isn't always right.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm just curious, but has anyone sued LA yet on this? Doing some quick research, (and possibly relying too much on the voices on the internet that I am unable to form critical opinions of) the constitutionality seems to rest on the fact that in the cases involved, the cities are not acting as market regulators but market participants. There is some question of this, but it does not appear to be as cut and dried as you are implying here.

This makes sense to me as a layperson, since LA is not restraining anyone's trade but its own. If they made it a violation of the condition of a business license to do business with Arizona, then I think you'd have a slam dunk.

It is totally cut and dry. Even your own link concludes that the market participant exception does not apply.

The city is, in short, using its market power (in combination with other states and municipalities — are there anti-trust implications here as well?) to try to coerce another state to change its laws. Regardless of its merit in this specific case, such a precedent would potentially destroy the very purpose of the commerce clause itself — preventing states from undertaking coercive trade practices against each other and thus resulting in trade wars amongst the states.

This result is obvious: the market participant exception only permits states to discriminate in favor of their own citizens when they are acting as market participants and not as regulators. The state's entire purpose, here, is improper because they are attempting to influence the laws and policies of a co-equal sovereign. Unlike all precedent cases on this matter, moreover, they are not merely discriminating in favor of their own citizens (see, e.g., Reeves Inc. v. Stake), but rather are discriminating against the citizens of a particular state. This also completely blows the exception.

Moreover, you have not even attempted to address the other constitutional provisions that the boycotts violate, including Privileges and Immunities (Article IV): "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." With regards to discriminating against other peoples' livelihoods, this also requires that the state show that the law or regulation is necessary to an important (legitimate) government purpose. Here, their purpose is illegitimate (compel another state to act--thus coopting Arizona's status as a co-equal sovereign), it's unnecessary (there are other ways of doing this), and their purpose is anything but important. In short, the boycott provisions violate half the constitutional laws in the book.

Unless there's federal laws I'm unaware of, I'm not sure that the feds would have jurisdiction, as most (if not all) of the laws governing lowest bidder that I know of are state laws.

It doesn't matter that "most" of the laws addressing the issue are state laws. What matters is that the laws are unconstitutional. The Federal government undoubtedly has authority to enforce constitutional provisions against states.

[Master of Ossus]

Under the circumstances, yes. "Constitutional" isn't a synonym for "not racist" you know. And I used the "fire hoses and dogs" example because I'm sure the people who did that would also have argued they were just enforcing the law.

Point to where, in the oath of office, Obama vowed that racists do not have constitutional rights?

More to the point, what I'm saying is a variation on the "politics" comments others are making; whether you like it or not, the Arizona law is clearly motivated by racism, and going along with it is collaborating with racists, and quite a few people are going to see it that way. If Obama cracks down, it'll be seen as him sucking up to racists which is hardly likely to be of political benefit to him.

First of all, people who think that are too stupid to coexist in society with those of us with marginally functional brain stems. It's not like Obama cannot simultaneously sue to enjoin enforcement of the Arizona Act (which he's done). Just as KKK members' speech that is clearly motivated by racism must be safeguarded by the Executive Branch, Obama must also protect even states that have passed laws that are "clearly motivated by racism" from other co-equal sovereigns' unconstitutional provisions against them. The case for Arizona is much stronger here, too, not only because their law is not actually "clearly motivated by racism," but also because the administration is also suing them to enjoin enforcement of the law despite the questionable legal standing of their litigation.

But in any case, the President is not supposed to respond to his own political benefit above upholding the Constitution. He and his staff act with the authority of the US government.

Yep, that's pretty much one of they things they said to justify beating up unarmed people back in the day - "we're just upholding the law". The sad thing? They were actually correct, that IS how the laws were back then. Legal isn't always right.

But in this case it is. Two wrongs do not make a right, particularly when the second wrong doesn't even seem remotely close to being constitutional and the Arizona law's constitutionality is at worst unclear.

[Broomstick]

Yep, that's pretty much one of they things they said to justify beating up unarmed people back in the day - "we're just upholding the law". The sad thing? They were actually correct, that IS how the laws were back then. Legal isn't always right.

But in this case it is. Two wrongs do not make a right, particularly when the second wrong doesn't even seem remotely close to being constitutional and the Arizona law's constitutionality is at worst unclear.

Oh, I agree - was just speaking about the historical case (1960's civil rights) vs. today's. Protesting what Arizona is doing by passing unconstitutional rules is bullshit. I understand the motivation, but the actions are wrong. There are alternative means to accomplish the end.

[Andrew J.]

I guess we disagree as to the degree of the harm, here. IMO, massive and deliberate violations by literally dozens of local governments of multiple constitutional provisions is an important issue for the Federal government to address, particularly since they're spending these oh-so-valuable government resources in determining whether or not Johannes Mehserle violated Oscar Grant's civil rights.

You talk of harm but then cite the number of laws violated, as if those were related. A little bit of highly diffuse economic damage is not as bad as the potential unfair harassment and imprisonment of countless of citizens, regardless of whether the former is more egregiously and obviously illegal than the latter.

[Questor]

It is totally cut and dry. Even your own link concludes that the market participant exception does not apply.

Yes, one of them does... Hence the "there seems to be some question of this."

Moreover, you have not even attempted to address the other constitutional provisions that the boycotts violate, including Privileges and Immunities (Article IV): "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." With regards to discriminating against other peoples' livelihoods, this also requires that the state show that the law or regulation is necessary to an important (legitimate) government purpose. Here, their purpose is illegitimate (compel another state to act--thus coopting Arizona's status as a co-equal sovereign), it's unnecessary (there are other ways of doing this), and their purpose is anything but important. In short, the boycott provisions violate half the constitutional laws in the book.

And you have yet to show me that you are smarter than every single lawyer in the California Bar. I notice that you have ignored my question of "Where are the lawsuits?" Private citizens don't have to wait for the federal government to sue, and in the Arizona case didn't.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that even if every member of the bar in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco is a part of the Vast Evil Liberal Conspiracy Against ArizonaTM, there isn't a single lawyer in either south Orange County, San Diego County, or the Inland Empire that has noticed this; or that if they have, the Orange County Register has decided not to report it. Or are you so deranged that you think that everyone in California is an Evil Liberal LoonieTM. If they were, there'd be a whole lot less gridlock in Sacramento.

It doesn't matter that "most" of the laws addressing the issue are state laws. What matters is that the laws are unconstitutional. The Federal government undoubtedly has authority to enforce constitutional provisions against states.

I never said they didn't, but I'm a little confused as to what you're arguing. I said lowest bidder laws might have been violated and that is a job for (at most) the CA Attorney General and you tried to bring the feds into it. If you are back on the constitutionality of the purchasing/contracting policies of the City of Los Angeles, rather than whether it violates the lowest bidder laws, a segue would be nice.

[Master of Ossus]

Yes, one of them does... Hence the "there seems to be some question of this."

Erm... from whom? Volokh Conspiracy (the legal blog that the second link derives from) posters broadly seem to be satisfied that Dormant Commerce Clause renders the boycott provisions unconstitutional. That you found a yahoo answers page in which one random person seems to claim otherwise doesn't create "some question of this" within the logical community (constitutional scholars). (There are also some non-lawyers on Volokh Conspiracy who seem to agree with you, but I haven't found a single lawyer since the first ~50 posts or so who thinks that it's up for debate). Moreover, you have still not addressed the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which are also obviously implicated here.

And you have yet to show me that you are smarter than every single lawyer in the California Bar. I notice that you have ignored my question of "Where are the lawsuits?" Private citizens don't have to wait for the federal government to sue, and in the Arizona case didn't.

They have to wait until they have standing to sue. And moreover, "every single lawyer in the California Bar?" wtf are you even talking about? All the lawyers on the Volokh Conspiracy (including Volokh himself) seem to agree that Dormant Commerce Clause renders it unconstitutional. For instance:

“We agree with the Court of Appeals, however, that by flatly prohibiting state purchases from repeat labor law violators Wisconsin ‘simply is not functioning as a private purchaser of services,’ 750 F.2d, at 614; for all practical purposes, Wisconsin’s debarment scheme is tantamount to regulation.” The Wisconsin law was, said the court, “a statute that can even plausibly be defended as a legitimate response to state procurement constraints or to local economic needs.”

This seems to me to suggest that the “market participant” exception would not shield the Arizona boycott from a dormant commerce clause challenge.

As I mentioned, the boycott does not (as far as I know) preempt any federal law. It does, however, violate the fundamental principal of federalism, since it is an attempt by the city of Los Angeles to impose its policies on Arizona.

He also cites Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, another case in which a state law preventing state funds from being used to purchase out-of-state goods and services was struck down as being unconstitutional for the very reason that a state or local government enacting a law for political reasons cannot shield itself using the market participant exception. There is good reason for this: such a state is not acting as a market participant.

We distinguished Gould in Boston Harbor, holding that the NLRA did not preclude a state agency supervising a construction project from requiring that contractors abide by a labor agreement. We explained that when a State acts as a “market participant with no interest in setting policy,” as opposed to a “regulator,” it does not offend the pre-emption principles of the NLRA. 507 U. S., at 229. In finding that the state agency had acted as a market participant, we stressed that the challenged action “was specifically tailored to one particular job,” and aimed “to ensure an efficient project that would be completed as quickly and effectively as possible at the lowest cost.” Id., at 232.

It is beyond dispute that California enacted AB 1889 in its capacity as a regulator rather than a market participant. AB 1889 is neither “specifically tailored to one particular job” nor a “legitimate response to state procurement constraints or to local economic needs.” Gould, 475 U. S., at 291. As the statute’s preamble candidly acknowledges, the legislative purpose is not the efficient procurement of goods and services, but the furtherance of a labor policy.

It is likewise beyond dispute that Los Angeles has no proprietary interest in refusing to purchase from Arizona, while continuing to purchase from the other 49 states. The only purpose is regulatory, and what it attempts to regulate are the policies of a separate sovereign state.

The boycott also violates the Equal Protection Clause. In HUGHES v. ALEXANDRIA SCRAP CORP., 426 U.S. 794 (1976), the court upheld a statute against an equal protection challenge, but only because the statute served a valid state purpose and the funding restrictions bore a rational relationship to that purpose. In the boycott law, there is no valid rational basis for denying the use of city funds to purchase products and services from Arizona.

I bolded the bit at the end, too, to remind you that the constitutionality of the boycott provisions also depends on Equal Protection--something I pointed out in a very early post and to which you have never even attempted a response.

This guy has pretty much won the thread--none of the regular posters are arguing against him, anymore (although there are some stupid people who have rushed in for each side and who don't seem to be lawyers or regular posters). In contrast, the original Arizona law remains quite controversial, with lawyers coming down on each side of its constitutionality.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that even if every member of the bar in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco is a part of the Vast Evil Liberal Conspiracy Against ArizonaTM, there isn't a single lawyer in either south Orange County, San Diego County, or the Inland Empire that has noticed this; or that if they have, the Orange County Register has decided not to report it. Or are you so deranged that you think that everyone in California is an Evil Liberal LoonieTM. If they were, there'd be a whole lot less gridlock in Sacramento.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but Eugene Volokh lives in LA--he's a professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA School of Law. He agrees that the laws are unconstitutional. I'm sure that many of his other posters also live in California and are lawyers; so far as I can see, none of them seem to think that the issue is anything but settled law.

I never said they didn't, but I'm a little confused as to what you're arguing. I said lowest bidder laws might have been violated and that is a job for (at most) the CA Attorney General and you tried to bring the feds into it. If you are back on the constitutionality of the purchasing/contracting policies of the City of Los Angeles, rather than whether it violates the lowest bidder laws, a segue would be nice.

I, frankly, couldn't care less about lowest bidder laws. The argument should be the constitutionality of the laws involved; intrastate conflicts are basically irrelevant to the discussion so far as I'm concerned.

You talk of harm but then cite the number of laws violated, as if those were related. A little bit of highly diffuse economic damage is not as bad as the potential unfair harassment and imprisonment of countless of citizens, regardless of whether the former is more egregiously and obviously illegal than the latter.

I talk about the constitutional provisions that have been blatantly and deliberately disregarded by the state and local governments involved. That's a much more serious problem than alleged "harassment and imprisonment of countless citizens" (which, btw, doesn't seem to be an issue in Rhode Island which has a functionally identical policy to Arizona's but without the guarantees of non-race-based enforcement). Indeed, it calls into question the entire structure and legitimacy of the government--Federal as well as state.

[Questor]

I'm going to snip the legal stuff - as I have no basis or expertise to argue constitutional law and just address the basic civics point. I have been trying to argue on what I know, but this has passed the point where my education gives me the ability to form an informed opinion.

My understanding of "standing to sue", i.e. basic "intro to law" understanding, is that you have standing to sue if you have been harmed. Is there another part I don't know?

If the law is affecting contracts negatively, then the people being affected have standing to sue, right? I seem to recall a city councilman on the radio talking about having cancelled a city contract, which would seem like harm to me, If so, WHY HAVEN'T THEY SUED? If it as cut and dried as you say, then why - across several jurisdictions - hasn't anyone sued? If the boycott is so weak that they don't have standing to sue yet, then I don't see how the boycott could possibly violate anything.

Tangentially, my point about California is that it isn't a monolithic bloc of opinions. I live in a conservative area, and I really doubt the local paper- which actually promotes Minutemen and Birther views - would not be arguing this especially in the op-eds (some of which make Arapio out to be the biggest American patriot since Washington). Maybe I'm stupid, but I still trust in American's litigiousness and the bias of my local paper more than I do the people on the internet - whatever their credentials.

For example: I know that if the Orange County Register writes something positive about a political figure, I can be sure that their politics are just to the right of Sarah Palin - and probably make about as much sense.

[Andrew J.]

I talk about the constitutional provisions that have been blatantly and deliberately disregarded by the state and local governments involved. That's a much more serious problem than alleged "harassment and imprisonment of countless citizens" (which, btw, doesn't seem to be an issue in Rhode Island which has a functionally identical policy to Arizona's but without the guarantees of non-race-based enforcement). Indeed, it calls into question the entire structure and legitimacy of the government--Federal as well as state.

The legitimacy of the government has been called into question in the past on a much larger scale than this, and the sky didn't fall. I see no reason to believe that this issue here will be the one that undermines the credibility of the State(s) enough to cause any major problem.

My understanding of the private lawsuit issue is that there can be a suit for a declaratory judgement that the boycotts are unconstitutional and unenforceable, even before they have prevented any actual business with Arizona.

[Master of Ossus]

My understanding of "standing to sue", i.e. basic "intro to law" understanding, is that you have standing to sue if you have been harmed. Is there another part I don't know?

If the law is affecting contracts negatively, then the people being affected have standing to sue, right? I seem to recall a city councilman on the radio talking about having cancelled a city contract, which would seem like harm to me, If so, WHY HAVEN'T THEY SUED? If it as cut and dried as you say, then why - across several jurisdictions - hasn't anyone sued? If the boycott is so weak that they don't have standing to sue yet, then I don't see how the boycott could possibly violate anything.

1. If the cities involved are actually canceling contracts outright, then that additionally violates the Contracts Clause of the Constitution. My understanding was that they were merely waiting for the next cycle to end and then refusing to take any more contracts from Arizona, but there's probably considerable variation even within the boycott provisions.
1a. If these cities and local governments have actually canceled contracts on this basis, then the Arizona companies involved would have standing to sue and are probably just waiting for their internal discovery to continue to the point where they can be confident in establishing damages, since those have to be proven with certainty and frequently take a lot of accounting work. Moreover, they're probably rounding up the right legal team to take their case, since it will be a test case for all the others and so they'll want the right lawyers and the right client and they probably have plenty of options in both.
1b. If the cities haven't canceled contracts and are simply declaring that they won't sign new contracts with Arizona companies, then the issue is standing since the companies won't have standing to sue until after their contract bids have been rejected.
2. Merely because challenges to a regulation are not ripe yet does not make the law constitutional.

Tangentially, my point about California is that it isn't a monolithic bloc of opinions. I live in a conservative area, and I really doubt the local paper- which actually promotes Minutemen and Birther views - would not be arguing this especially in the op-eds (some of which make Arapio out to be the biggest American patriot since Washington). Maybe I'm stupid, but I still trust in American's litigiousness and the bias of my local paper more than I do the people on the internet - whatever their credentials.

For example: I know that if the Orange County Register writes something positive about a political figure, I can be sure that their politics are just to the right of Sarah Palin - and probably make about as much sense.

So basically your local newspaper is made up idiots who obviously have no clue about the law, but you trust their opinion of constitutional legal issues more than you trust the opinion of a blog full of lawyers which is operated by a UCLA Professor of Constitutional Law?

[Master of Ossus]

The legitimacy of the government has been called into question in the past on a much larger scale than this, and the sky didn't fall. I see no reason to believe that this issue here will be the one that undermines the credibility of the State(s) enough to cause any major problem.

You don't see why literally dozens of state and local governments deliberately violating the rights of the citizens of another state (seemingly with regards to no less than four constitutional provisions) is a problem?

My understanding of the private lawsuit issue is that there can be a suit for a declaratory judgement that the boycotts are unconstitutional and unenforceable, even before they have prevented any actual business with Arizona.

Not if they can't show that they've been injured or are imminently going to be injured (standing), which is difficult in the context of contracts because it's hard to show that they would have been entitled to those contracts in the first place.

[Questor]

1. If the cities involved are actually canceling contracts outright, then that additionally violates the Contracts Clause of the Constitution. My understanding was that they were merely waiting for the next cycle to end and then refusing to take any more contracts from Arizona, but there's probably considerable variation even within the boycott provisions.

I'd love to be able to find the transcript of Ed Reyes's radio interview where he talked about canceling contracts, but I can't. The focus of the interview (from last week sometime, I think) was on the red light camera contract exemption.

1a. If these cities and local governments have actually canceled contracts on this basis, then the Arizona companies involved would have standing to sue and are probably just waiting for their internal discovery to continue to the point where they can be confident in establishing damages, since those have to be proven with certainty and frequently take a lot of accounting work. Moreover, they're probably rounding up the right legal team to take their case, since it will be a test case for all the others and so they'll want the right lawyers and the right client and they probably have plenty of options in both.

OK, that makes sense.

1b. If the cities haven't canceled contracts and are simply declaring that they won't sign new contracts with Arizona companies, then the issue is standing since the companies won't have standing to sue until after their contract bids have been rejected.

I understood that part.

2. Merely because challenges to a regulation are not ripe yet does not make the law constitutional.

Which wasn't my point. My point is that if the boycott is so weak that no one gets standing to sue (ever), I don't understand how it could be ruled to have violated anything.

Here's another thought - and this one more from your side of this. Does LA granting a bunch of exemptions violate Equal Protection?

Tangentially, my point about California is that it isn't a monolithic bloc of opinions. I live in a conservative area, and I really doubt the local paper- which actually promotes Minutemen and Birther views - would not be arguing this especially in the op-eds (some of which make Arapio out to be the biggest American patriot since Washington). Maybe I'm stupid, but I still trust in American's litigiousness and the bias of my local paper more than I do the people on the internet - whatever their credentials.

For example: I know that if the Orange County Register writes something positive about a political figure, I can be sure that their politics are just to the right of Sarah Palin - and probably make about as much sense.

So basically your local newspaper is made up idiots who obviously have no clue about the law, but you trust their opinion of constitutional legal issues more than you trust the opinion of a blog full of lawyers which is operated by a UCLA Professor of Constitutional Law?

No, I trust them to report everything, real or imagined, that could possibly be seen as negative to liberals (or those they view as liberals). I.E. that's why I'm sure that lawsuits haven't been filed. The OC Register WOULD have reported on it.

As for trusting a blog - any blog, or for that matter random internet people - I don't trust them at all beyond being a reflection of the author's views. Simply being on the faculty of a law school is no proof that the person is considering an issue dispassionately - nor is it a guarantee that they have come to the correct conclusion. This is why I generally only use the internet for fun. When I have a legal question that I actually care about enough to spend money to get an answer to, I consult a lawyer, not a legal blog. When I have tax questions, I ask my accountant. If I have a question about a rash on my arm, I ask my doctor. Are you seeing a pattern here? I've been around long enough to know that 99.99999% of what's on the internet is pure crap.

[Andrew J.]

The legitimacy of the government has been called into question in the past on a much larger scale than this, and the sky didn't fall. I see no reason to believe that this issue here will be the one that undermines the credibility of the State(s) enough to cause any major problem.

You don't see why literally dozens of state and local governments deliberately violating the rights of the citizens of another state (seemingly with regards to no less than four constitutional provisions) is a problem?

Not a majorproblem. Don't lie about what I say again, ever.

[Master of Ossus]

Which wasn't my point. My point is that if the boycott is so weak that no one gets standing to sue (ever), I don't understand how it could be ruled to have violated anything.

If the boycott is so weak that it literally affects nothing, then no party will ever achieve standing since no one will be harmed. However, I don't think that's the intention, here, and if some or all of these governments have literally canceled contracts with Arizona companies then this is obviously untrue.

Here's another thought - and this one more from your side of this. Does LA granting a bunch of exemptions violate Equal Protection?

I don't understand what you mean? Are you asking whether it would violate Equal Protection if they have the ban but then exempt every Arizona company with which they're dealing? In that case, the boycott provision would still violate Equal Protection (because the distinction drawn by the government entity is still drawn on the basis of state citizenship) and the firms that had to apply for exemptions would actually have standing to sue even if they did receive the exemption on the basis that the original distinction drawn was discriminatory. While LA could argue that the cases were moot, a federal court would probably hear the case, anyway, by finding that the harm was capable of repetition (the Arizona firm could seek to negotiate for a later contract with LA) and that the issue was evading review (just because the City currently exempts every company doesn't mean that they will always do so).

If that wasn't your question, could you please try to clarify? I'm a bit confused on what exemptions you're referring to?

No, I trust them to report everything, real or imagined, that could possibly be seen as negative to liberals (or those they view as liberals). I.E. that's why I'm sure that lawsuits haven't been filed. The OC Register WOULD have reported on it.

As for trusting a blog - any blog, or for that matter random internet people - I don't trust them at all beyond being a reflection of the author's views. Simply being on the faculty of a law school is no proof that the person is considering an issue dispassionately - nor is it a guarantee that they have come to the correct conclusion. This is why I generally only use the internet for fun. When I have a legal question that I actually care about enough to spend money to get an answer to, I consult a lawyer, not a legal blog. When I have tax questions, I ask my accountant. If I have a question about a rash on my arm, I ask my doctor. Are you seeing a pattern here? I've been around long enough to know that 99.99999% of what's on the internet is pure crap.

Wait, what? You originally cited to a source that references the blog in question as evidence that the constitutionality of the boycott provision was in dispute. How can you run back to the position that "it's on the internet; no one vets it" after you yourself referenced it? Further, the opinions of the authors on that particular blog aren't just normal, dismissible opinions: they've been presented by several attorneys, some of whom argued both sides (a kind of adversarial setting), and both referenced Supreme Court cases and other case law, some of which I preserved when I quoted it here.

Obviously I'm not willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars in hiring a constitutional lawyer to investigate several cases in which I have no interest whatsoever, but surely the opinion of numerous attorneys who came to a reasoned conclusion via an adversarial process constitutes powerful evidence as to the lack of constitutionality of the statutes in question. On the other hand, there appears to be no solid evidence that there is any remaining question as to the boycott provisions' lack of constitutionality--you yourself have claimed that your own sources for claiming this were invalid since they were on the internet (and, indeed, they don't appear to support your contention at all).

[Master of Ossus]

Not a majorproblem. Don't lie about what I say again, ever.

How is it not a major problem if literally dozens of state and local governments deliberately exceed the basis of their own authority? They have no ability to pass such laws because doing so ignores the very basis of their delegated authority. Moreover, as was explained by the blogger whom I quoted supra, the very existence of such laws is an affront to federalism in this country. Surely you think that federalism is a key component of our government's structure, and that deliberate government efforts to undermine federalism are seriously problematic.

Moreover, this discussion began with my assertion that the government should attack these boycott provisions as being unconstitutional (consistent with... say... Obama's oath of office). If you agree that the boycott provisions are a problem, then stating that they're not major is merely a dodge of the central point that the government ought to bring legal challenge against them. This is why the government has an attorney general, and why the Executive Branch maintains a large pool of attorneys to bring suit against state and local government for unconstitutional behavior.

Finally, care to estimate the total amount of economic damages implicated by these boycott provisions? Would you say that it's $4mm? $10mm? More? Less?

What level of economic interest would you say would be required to constitute a "major problem," to which the federal government should respond by enjoining the state action?

[Questor]

If that wasn't your question, could you please try to clarify? I'm a bit confused on what exemptions you're referring to?

Actually, I was wondering if the granting of exemptions to some contractors (red light cameras, police conferences) and not others (whoever else) violated equal protection.

Wait, what? You originally cited to a source that references the blog in question as evidence that the constitutionality of the boycott provision was in dispute. How can you run back to the position that "it's on the internet; no one vets it" after you yourself referenced it? Further, the opinions of the authors on that particular blog aren't just normal, dismissible opinions: they've been presented by several attorneys, some of whom argued both sides (a kind of adversarial setting), and both referenced Supreme Court cases and other case law, some of which I preserved when I quoted it here.

I know your smart enough to understand the difference between:

1. Person A, whoever the fuck they are, says this (A) and Person B, whoever the fuck they are, says that (B).

and

2. Person A, who is automatically right by virtue of who they claim to be, says this (A).

Or at least you used to be. Have you had any recent traumatic brain injuries?

[Master of Ossus]

If that wasn't your question, could you please try to clarify? I'm a bit confused on what exemptions you're referring to?

Actually, I was wondering if the granting of exemptions to some contractors (red light cameras, police conferences) and not others (whoever else) violated equal protection.

No. "Equal Protection" refers to the concept that similarly situated people must be treated similarly, and that the government must generally show cause for why it distingishes between people when it makes exceptions (i.e., explaining why they are not similarly situated with respect to the law in question). Exempting some contractors but not others is constitutional if there is a legitimate government purpose in making the distinction.

I know your smart enough to understand the difference between:

1. Person A, whoever the fuck they are, says this (A) and Person B, whoever the fuck they are, says that (B).

and

2. Person A, who is automatically right by virtue of who they claim to be, says this (A).

Or at least you used to be. Have you had any recent traumatic brain injuries?

So... can you cite any evidence that any constitutional scholars agree that the boycott provisions are constitutional? Moreover, you failed to analyze the arguments that these people advanced, failed to account for the fact that they are attorneys, and failed to present any evidence other than "My local newspaper hasn't picked up the story, yet, and I really trust my local paper to present the issue."

You've made it clear that you're unwilling to have the discussion on its own merits and have a discussion with me about the constitutionality of the boycott provisions, and you've made it clear that you're unwilling to accept the opinions of people whose job it is to accurately diagnose the constitutionality of government actions on the constitutionality of the boycott regulations. What evidence can be presented that will possibly get you to acknowledge that the boycotts are unconstitutional? Your local paper's say-so? Perhaps I should put together an op-ed.