» The Act of Boycotting Arizona Unconstitutional Common Sense Politics: We Can't Change It So We Might As Well Laugh About It

Several state and regional governments have enacted selective paying for laws that discriminate against firms that do company from the southwestern state of Arizona.

State and nearby sanctions conflict with three major constitutional principles. The very first and most obvious issue is that they violate federal supremacy in making foreign policy. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled consistently that our constitutional system of government “requires that federal energy within the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from regional interference.” By explicitly attempting to make foreign policy, state and nearby sanctions infringe on this exclusive federal energy.

Second, state and nearby selective paying for laws are inconsistent with the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the energy to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to forbid states and localities from, among other things, creating “discriminations favorable or adverse to commerce with specific foreign nations.” States and localities that enact sanctions aren’t merely “market participants”; they seek to influence commerce with foreign nations.

Finally, state and regional sanctions against Arizona collide with federal law, in violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Article VI, Clause 2, forbids state and regional laws that contradict federal laws in matters where the federal government has authority to act. Congress has rejected proposals to ban trade with Burma or force divestiture of existing investments there. Yet selective buying laws seek to impose just such a policy on U.S. companies.

Several state and regional governments have enacted selective paying for laws that discriminate against firms that do company from the southwestern state of Arizona.
State and nearby sanctions conflict with three major constitutional principles. The very first and most obvious issue is that they violate federal supremacy in making foreign policy. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled consistently that our constitutional system of government “requires that federal energy within the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from regional interference.” By explicitly attempting to make foreign policy, state and nearby sanctions infringe on this exclusive federal energy.
Second, state and nearby selective paying for laws are inconsistent with the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the energy to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to forbid states and localities from, among other things, creating “discriminations favorable or adverse to commerce with specific foreign nations.” States and localities that enact sanctions aren’t merely “market participants”; they seek to influence commerce with foreign nations.
Finally, state and regional sanctions against Arizona collide with federal law, in violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Article VI, Clause 2, forbids state and regional laws that contradict federal laws in matters where the federal government has authority to act. Congress has rejected proposals to ban trade with Burma or force divestiture of existing investments there. Yet selective buying laws seek to impose just such a policy on U.S. companies.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES