S. 1157, the Dairy Consumers and Producers Protection Act of 2001: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session, July 25, 2001, Volume 4

Front Cover
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 48 - Union, at a time and place to be agreed on, to take into consideration the trade of the United States ; to examine the relative situations and trade of the said States ; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their common interest and their permanent harmony...
Page 53 - ... the business of insurance. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest, and that silence on the part of the Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier to the regulation or taxation of such business by the several States.
Page 49 - If New York, in order to promote the economic welfare of her farmers, may guard them against competition with the cheaper prices of Vermont, the door has been opened to rivalries and reprisals that were meant to be averted by subjecting commerce between the states to the power of the nation.
Page 9 - Nation, that no home embargoes will withhold his exports, and no foreign state will by customs duties or regulations exclude them. Likewise, every consumer may look to the free competition from every producing area in the Nation to protect him from exploitation by any.
Page 49 - ... avowed purpose of the obstruction, as well as its necessary tendency, is to suppress or mitigate the consequences of competition between the states. Such an obstruction is direct by the very terms of the hypothesis.
Page 53 - Clause to establish a program of state customs duties aimed at the produce of sister-states. 178 Court was confronted by a South Carolina tax on out-of-state insurance companies that exempted South Carolina companies. In the absence of the McCarran Act, the South Carolina tax would almost certainly have been invalid as a discriminatory treatment of interstate commerce. See Welton v. Missouri, 91 US 275 (1876). In view of the McCarran Act, however, the Court sustained the discriminatory tax, reasoning...
Page 49 - Nice distinctions have been made at times between direct and indirect burdens. They are irrelevant when the avowed purpose of the obstruction, as well as its necessary tendency, Is to suppress or mitigate the consequences of competition between the States.
Page 49 - Such a power, if exerted, will set a barrier to traffic between one state and another as effective as if customs duties, equal to the price differential, had been laid upon the thing transported.
Page 48 - When victory relieved the Colonies from the pressure for solidarity that war had exerted, a drift toward anarchy and commercial warfare between states began. ". . . each State would legislate according to its estimate of its own interests, the importance of its own products, and the local advantages or disadvantages of its position in a political or commercial view.
Page 78 - If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Ted Illston, Senior Policy Advisor (703/841-4592.). Statement of Donald A. Osborne, Mayor City of Crookston, Minnesota March 18.2005 "Red Lake River Flood Prevention Project...

Bibliographic information