On Thu, 27 May 2004 17:58:13 GMT, "dick"
> wrote:


>Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there cannot
>be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That said
>since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear the
>case?

If they allow the states to make their own decisions in this case, what
happens is rampant protectionism that is inconsistent because each state
does it the way they think will best benefit them?
Is this wrong? depends on how one views the Constitution.
Traditionally, the Court would say that the states cannot engage in that
type of activity and invoke the "Dormant Commerce Clause" as reasoning
to this effect. However, I would say that -at the very least-
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas will uphold the states' rights to engage
in this type of economic protectionism as they tend to apply a more
Federalist viewpoint when adjudicating these matters.


K