does refusing to deliver goods to New York violate the commerce clause of the constitution?

[S K]

Truckers for Trump will boycott driving to New York City after $355M fraud ruling

An individual trucker can do whatever he wants - but can an organization that calls itself "Truckers or Trump" impede free commercial traffic between states?

With the advent of Trump (Ironically, born and bred in the Yankiest of Yankee places, New York City) , the south is steadily escalating its refighting of the civil war and at some point, it is going to escalate beyond words.

[John Levine]

According to S K <skpf...@gmail.com>:

>Truckers for Trump will boycott driving to New York City after $355M fraud ruling
>
>An individual trucker can do whatever he wants - but can an organization that calls itself "Truckers or Trump" impede free commercial traffic between states?

Sure. The Commerce clause says what state governments can do, not what private parties can do.

It's really stupid, but there isn't much you can do about that.



--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[S K]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 11:55:09 AM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
> According to S K <sk...@gmail.com>:

OK - but what if a state (such as the mighty state of Texas) endorses the truckers' move?

Texas seems to be openly usurping Federal control of immigration and at least for now, Biden has given them free rein.

The South, led by Texas, is performing a (re)secessionist strip tease - will it get serious or is it just gunned right wing white male tough talk ("go ahead, make my day", "frick around and find out" sort of thing)?

[John Levine]

According to S K <skpf...@gmail.com>:

>> >Truckers for Trump will boycott driving to New York City after $355M fraud ruling
>> >
>> >An individual trucker can do whatever he wants - but can an organization that calls itself "Truckers or Trump" impede free commercial traffic between states?
>> Sure. The Commerce clause says what state governments can do, not what private parties can do.
>>
>> It's really stupid, but there isn't much you can do about that.
>

>OK - but what if a state (such as the mighty state of Texas) endorses the truckers' move?

That would be a problem and I expect any sane court (which
unfortunately excludes several of the ones in Texas and sometimes the
5th circuit) would block it instantly.

>Texas seems to be openly usurping Federal control of immigration and at least for now, Biden has given them free rein.
>
>The South, led by Texas, is performing a (re)secessionist strip tease - will it get serious or is it just gunned right wing white male tough talk ("go ahead, make my
>day", "frick around and find out" sort of thing)?

That whole states rights thing worked out poorly 160 years ago but I
guess memories are short.

[Stan Brown]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 08:34:35 -0800 (PST), S K wrote:
> Truckers for Trump will boycott driving to New York City after $355M fraud ruling
>
> An individual trucker can do whatever he wants - but can an organization that calls itself "Truckers or Trump" impede free commercial traffic between states?

They can't legally impede commerce, but that's not what they are
doing or threatening to do. Impeding commerce would be preventing
_others_ from making deliveries to New York. And there are existing
laws against that, like not creating obstructions to highway traffic.

They are essentially threatening to go on strike, which is not
illegal. But I think you'll find that the large corporations that
employ these "independent" truckers won't stand for anything that
interrupts their profits. A trucker who turns down jobs, or accepts
them but then doesn't perform, will quickly find out they are
"independent" only in name.

Why do people find it so hard to understand that restrictions on what
governments can do are not the same as restrictions on what
individuals can do?

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

[Rick]

"S K" wrote in message
news:fc38e4e6-ee56-49d7...@googlegroups.com...

>
>Truckers for Trump will boycott driving to New York City after $355M fraud
>ruling
>
>An individual trucker can do whatever he wants - but can an organization
>that calls itself "Truckers or Trump" impede free commercial traffic
>between states?

Sure, as long as it's not a governmental agency. Private citizens or groups
who provide a service can do what they want, and the recourse for others is
just don't do business with them. That's called free enterprise.

>
>With the advent of Trump (Ironically, born and bred in the Yankiest of
>Yankee places, New York City) , the south is steadily escalating its
>refighting of the civil war and at some point, it is going to escalate
>beyond words.

--

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

"Rick" <ri...@nospam.com> wrote in news:ur0ij9$23ald$1...@dont-email.me:

>>An individual trucker can do whatever he wants - but can an
>>organization that calls itself "Truckers or Trump" impede free
>>commercial traffic between states?
>
> Sure, as long as it's not a governmental agency. Private citizens or
> groups who provide a service can do what they want, and the recourse
> for others is just don't do business with them. That's called free
> enterprise.

Ever since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, it's been illegal for a
business to discriminate on the basis of national origin, sex, religion,
color or race. However recently the Supreme Court said discrimination is
perfectly fine as long as you claim a religious reason for it.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:44:06 -0800 (PST),

Maybe this is a quibble, but I think they said it was legal, not
"perfectly fine".

If we're not talking about the wedding cake, please remind me of the
case involved.

If we're talking about the wedding cake for the gay couple (and I can't
rmemeber which direction that decision went) it's worth noting that the
baker was willing to make the cake, ice the cake, and include in the
price a funnel of different colored icing so whoever bought the cake
could inscribe on it whatever words he wanted. The baker just wasn't
willing to write them himself. Now if a nazi were having a party on
hitler's birthday and he wanted the baker to write "Hail to the Fuhrer"
on the cake, would you tell him he had to do that?

The problem seems to be that people don't take the religious laws of
other religions, or even of their own sometimes, seriously. So most
Christian sects prohibit gay marriage, so what! That's just their
stupid opinion, not some principle they're obliged to honor. In contrast
to what the the free exercise of religion clause says.

Isn't the First Amemdment of higher priority than the Right to Buy Cake
law?

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:43:46 -0800 (PST), S K

<skpf...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 11:55:09 AM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
>> According to S K <sk...@gmail.com>:
>> >Truckers for Trump will boycott driving to New York City after $355M fraud ruling
>> >
>> >An individual trucker can do whatever he wants - but can an organization that calls itself "Truckers or Trump" impede free commercial traffic between states?

It doesn't change your question or the answers but fwiw:

If they are employees of whoever made the goods being shipped, they'll
be fired. If they are independents, they'll have big trouble getting
loads in the future if they do this. We'll see how many are ready to do
that to themselves.

Hmmm. Confusing hits here,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=truck+driver+is+organizing+truckers+to+boycott+
Not sure if it shows the same thing to everyone, but for me the first
hit is from a day ago and says " A group of truck drivers who support
former President Trump have announced they will not be driving to New
York City as a means of ..."

But from *2* days ago it says ""Chicago Ray" truck driver calls off NYC
boycott https://www.foxnews.com › chicago-ray-walks-back-tr...
2 days ago — After calling on truckers to boycott driving to New York
City in response to the civil fraud judgment that fined Trump more than
$350 ...""'Chicago Ray' takes down his 'Truckers for Trump' post less
than 24 hours after his call to action"

It's the same person organizing it in both articles. It may be, I
suppose, that Stephany Price took too long to file hir story, and it was
obsolete by a day by the time s/he did.

>> Sure. The Commerce clause says what state governments can do, not what private parties can do.
>>
>> It's really stupid, but there isn't much you can do about that.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>
>OK - but what if a state (such as the mighty state of Texas) endorses the truckers' move?
>
>Texas seems to be openly usurping Federal control of immigration and at least for now, Biden has given them free rein.

I don't remember Biden giving them free rein. WRT the razor wire in the
middle of the Rio Grande, the administration took them to court, won,
and afaik is soon going to take out the razor wire, if it hasn't
alreadyd.

What free rein has Biden given them?

>
>The South, led by Texas, is performing a (re)secessionist strip tease - will it get serious or is it just gunned right wing white male tough talk ("go ahead, make my day", "frick around and find out" sort of thing)?

The South will rise again. I used to hear that as a child, not from
anyone who meant it but from people talking about those who felt that
way. I guess it's been replaced by other slogans.

[John Levine]

According to micky <mis...@fmguy.com>:

>>color or race. However recently the Supreme Court said discrimination is
>>perfectly fine as long as you claim a religious reason for it.
>
>Maybe this is a quibble, but I think they said it was legal, not
>"perfectly fine".

They say what the law is, so in this case they mean the same thing,

>If we're not talking about the wedding cake, please remind me of the
>case involved.

We're probably talking about 303 Creative vs. Elenis, a totally
contrived case in which a web designer said she didn't want to design
a web site for a gay wedding. The case was contrived because the only
request that she do so was obviously from someone who wasn't looking
00000for a web site but only to give her an excuse to object.

> Now if a nazi were having a party on
>hitler's birthday and he wanted the baker to write "Hail to the Fuhrer"
>on the cake, would you tell him he had to do that?

If you purport to run a business open to the public, you can't
discriminate against people on the basis of sex, which has been
interpreted to include sexual orientation. It's the same reason
you can't refuse to serve Blacks. Except that now SCOTUS says
that if you claim it's because of religion, it's fine. You've
always been free to discriminate against Nazis who are not a
protected class.

>The problem seems to be that people don't take the religious laws of
>other religions, or even of their own sometimes, seriously.

You have it backwards. For the first 200 years or so, freedom of
religion meant the right to practice your own religion, but not to
force other people to practice it, too. Now that's changed.

In this week's SCOTUS orders list, Justice Alito made it quite clear
in his dissent where he would have accepted a case that the court
declined to hear:

In this case, the court below reasoned that a person who still holds
traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality is
presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who
is a lesbian. That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated
in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015), namely, that Americans
who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about
homosexual conduct will be “labeled as bigots and treated as such” by
the government.

To point out the obvious, the reason they'd be labeled and treated as
bigots, is that they *are* bigots. You have always had the right to be
as bigoted as you want, but the idea that there are no consequences
for your beliefs and that you can force them on other people is new
and, at least to me, profoundly wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022024zor_ggco.pdf

[Rick]

"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message
news:XnsB11DBFE31D59As...@130.133.4.11...

There are numerous examples where a private business is allowed to
discriminate. For example, if a film producer is casting the part of George
Washington, it is legal to only consider old white men for the part. If a
health agency is hiring a nurse to help an elderly or disabled patient with
intimate personal care, it is legal to hire based on the gender preference
of the patient. If a kosher deli is hiring a butcher in accordance with
religious dietary laws, it is allowed to exclude non-Jewish candidates. If
a scientific study is being done to determine if people react differently to
a drug or medical treatment due to racial or national origin differences, it
is legitimate to recruit study candidates based on those factors.

--

[Barry Gold]

Wrong. An individual can refuse to drive somewhere. And a group can do
the same. There are a few exceptions, notably "conspiracy", which is
forming a group for the purpose of committing a crime. Even if the crime
never happens, the agreement (plus at least one overt act furthering
that agreement) is enough to convict.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...