L.A. City Council Votes to Ban Commerce in Arizona

[The Cat-Tribe]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/la-city-council-votes-to-ban-travel-and-future-contracts-with-arizona-because-of-tough-new-immigrati.html

So what are your thoughts on this "embargo" of sorts? Is it legal? Is it right? And did they really need to Godwin the whole population of Arizona?

It's actually pretty hilariously in violation of the Commerce Clause. Hilariously, because it's the one scenario that pretty much everyone educated to a Con Law I level, regardless of their personal politics, should agree on. Or I'm drunk. One of the two is certainly true.

Excuse me? How is it even remotely illegally (let alone a violation of the Commerce Clause) for the City of Los Angeles to say THE CITY will no longer do business with Arizona?

I'm not sure of the wisdom of (or the language used to support) this boycott, but I agree that the Arizona law is reprehensible, racist, and unconstitutional.

Regardless, the City of LA is well within their rights to stop city travel to or city buisness with Arizona.

[Copiosa Scotia]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/la-city-council-votes-to-ban-travel-and-future-contracts-with-arizona-because-of-tough-new-immigrati.html

So what are your thoughts on this "embargo" of sorts? Is it legal? Is it right? And did they really need to Godwin the whole population of Arizona?

It's actually pretty hilariously in violation of the Commerce Clause. Hilariously, because it's the one scenario that pretty much everyone educated to a Con Law I level, regardless of their personal politics, should agree on. Or I'm drunk. One of the two is certainly true.

Excuse me? How is it even remotely illegally (let alone a violation of the Commerce Clause) for the City of Los Angeles to say THE CITY will no longer do business with Arizona?

I'm not sure of the wisdom of (or the language used to support) this boycott, but I agree that the Arizona law is reprehensible, racist, and unconstitutional.

Regardless, the City of LA is well within their rights to stop city travel to or city buisness with Arizona.

That's why I offered the second possibility, and I'm certainly willing to accept that it's the truer of the two. I was firing from the hip based on a (probably ill-formed) dormant Commerce Clause argument and my analysis of a prior unrelated Arizona boycott, and I'm not terribly surprised that I've gone wrong. That's why you're the lawyer and I'm the student trying to kill time between finals. Nevertheless, I appreciate the correction.