I don't think so. Interstate commerce is jurisdiction of the federal government, and that's in the Constitution. Washington, Oregon, and California can't form a pact together to do what they are planning to do with the apps that track if you've been exposed to Wuhan virus and digital vaccine proof.
Since so much goods go through the Port of LA, he could theoretically force California to end the stay at home or safer at home orders and claim he's doing it for the benefit of the interior states (pick a landlocked state without major river access to the seas). This is why the Interstate Commerce Clause makes the whole Constitution murky and ripe for abuse via a paragraph or two that seemed reasonably stated 200+ years ago.
That factor changes my opinion a bit...thanks.
To my knowledge, this hasn't been done so I don't think there's ever been a challenge between 10A and Interstate Commerce. If 10A wins, this could be a huge restriction/expansion on what the feds or states can do. I'd prefer states affected by the states forming pacts go after the pacts themselves; if the administration does it and wins, that gives a huge ace to the next lefty that comes into power. That's the thing that bothers me the most about all this bullshit regarding Wuhan virus.
Interesting to see if leftoids would use 'state's rights' all the sudden as a key platform issue. I also want to see how far "state compacts" go.
(post is archived)