Constitutionality of the Nebraska Exemption

[Daniel Hoffman]

--- On Thu, 12/24/09, Daniel Hoffman <guayiya at BELLSOUTH.NET> wrote:

> From: Daniel Hoffman <guayiya at BELLSOUTH.NET>
> Subject: Re: Constitutionality of the Nebraska Exemption II
> To: LAWCOURT-L at TULANE.EDU
> Date: Thursday, December 24, 2009, 2:01 PM
> I see that the State AGs are relying,
> at least in part, on Art. I sec. 9's provision banning
> disparate treatment of PORTS in different States.  Is
> there precedent for such a broad reading?
> Daniel Hoffman
> 
> --- On Thu, 12/24/09, Rush, Mark <RushM at WLU.EDU>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Rush, Mark <RushM at WLU.EDU>
> > Subject: Re: Constitutionality of the Nebraska
> Exemption II
> > To: LAWCOURT-L at TULANE.EDU
> > Date: Thursday, December 24, 2009, 9:27 AM
> > just weighing in quickly here. 
> > I realize that this is probably an extremely academic
> > argument, but...
> > 
> > Had the other 49 states decided to select Nebraska for
> a
> > special penalty, would the form of the situation be
> any
> > different?  Scholars (and Nebraskans) would be
> > outraged.  
> > 
> > Would that be unconstitutional though?  Seems to me
> it
> > would be an extreme version of an unfunded mandate. 
> > Those are unfortunate, but not unconstitutional.
> > 
> > cheers
> > 
> > 
> > From: Law courts [LAWCOURT-L at tulane.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Marvin Zalman [aa1887 at WAYNE.EDU]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 8:31 AM
> > To: LAWCOURT-L at tulane.edu
> > Subject: Constitutionality of the Nebraska Exemption
> II
> > 
> > Re: Mathew Manweller's query on the Constitutionality
> of
> > the Nebraska Exemption.
> > 
> > Yesterday while shaving it struck me that Senator
> Nelson's
> > deal favoring one state over 49, thereby giving
> Nebraska
> > businesses a competitive advantage, must offend the
> > Constitution's privileges and immunities clause in
> Art. IV,
> > Sec. 1. By the time I got to breakfast I thought that
> such
> > an interpretation would negate 90% of federal
> legislation,
> > which I suppose is of the  pork-barrel variety.
> > Thinking it would be idiotic to pose the question, I
> put it
> > out of mind. Now that several state AGs, including
> mine, are
> > thinking along this track I'd like to second Mathew's
> > question. As I have no (academic) truck with the
> > non-criminal side of the Constitution I offer no
> comment on
> > the merits.
> > Marvin
> > 
> > = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> > Marvin Zalman
> > Professor
> > Department of Criminal Justice
> > Wayne State University
> > Detroit, MI 48202
> > Direct: (313) 577-6087
> > CJ Office: (313)577-2705
> > Fax: (313) 577-9977
> > aa1887 at wayne.edu
> > http://www.clas.wayne.edu/faculty/Zalman
> > 
> > !SIG:4b336f85141301687111895!
> > 
>