Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:01:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 16:19:15 GMT
linkInteresting From Fox News.. “Texas asks Supreme Court to repeal California's multistate travel ban”
From the article ”Texas filed a lawsuit Tuesday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a California law prohibiting state employees from attending taxpayer-funded business trips to conferences in the Lone Star State. Cases generally have to escalate from lower courts before reaching the Supreme Court, but the high court has exclusive jurisdiction over civil disputes between states. California, since 2016, has barred its public officials from traveling on business to states California deems discriminatory to LGBTQ people. Lawmakers enacted the ban after North Carolina enacted a law requiring people to use the bathrooms that corresponded with their sex assigned at birth.Texas was added to the list in 2017 after it passed a law allowing foster care and adoption agencies to deny services for religious beliefs, which California perceived as discriminatory against the LGBTQ community. The law does, however, require agencies to refer prospective parents to other organizations willing to work with them. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the California law on Monday, calling the ban “economic warfare” and an attempt “to punish Texans for respecting the right of conscience for foster care and adoption providers,” in a statement obtained by the Houston Chronicle.” I would think each state has the right to set guidelines where they send their employees to out of the State and in the state for that matter. And the only people that they need to justify these decisions to are the residents of said state and not to other states. I would think this would fall under “State’s Rights”.
|
|
Anita
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,891 
Location: Kansas City -ish
|
Post by Anita on Feb 12, 2020 16:36:20 GMT
It does fall under state rights. They are just hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 12, 2020 18:17:09 GMT
I'll be interested to see how this plays out though as interstate commerce is a federal right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Feb 12, 2020 18:20:53 GMT
I'll be interested to see how this plays out though as interstate commerce is a federal right specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I see this as an employer (The State of California) not willing to pay for the travel expenses of its employees. I guess they can still go on their own, but no expenses will be reimbursed. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:01:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 18:49:50 GMT
Would money spent on a business trip be considered “commerce ”?
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 12, 2020 19:03:38 GMT
Would money spent on a business trip be considered “commerce ”? Commerce is the exchange of goods and services. I can't see how travel wouldn't be included. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 12, 2020 19:10:23 GMT
Aw, sounds like Texas has felt an economic pinch. As a resident of the state, I say good. If the lege is going to pass bigoted laws, they should be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Also it's ridiculous that one state could compel another to do anything. This is the kind of crap Paxton likes to waste our money on.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 12, 2020 19:10:41 GMT
Would money spent on a business trip be considered “commerce ”? Commerce is the exchange of goods and services. I can't see how travel wouldn't be included. But they aren’t banning the commerce part of it. All Californians, including state employees, are allowed to travel to Texas. The State of California will not pay for business travel to forbidden states. That seems quite different to me. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:01:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 19:13:58 GMT
California put Oklahoma on the travel ban too, and we banned California. Really the only (but potentially big) problem is federally mandated conferences for state employees who have to be aware of federal regulatory changes will be prohibited from conference attendance in certain states. Ok and Texas both have are centrally located so travel from east/west is equal. Texas in particular has conference centers that can handle the attendance capacities. It is only state funded travel that won't be paid for.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:01:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 19:22:17 GMT
Would money spent on a business trip be considered “commerce ”? Commerce is the exchange of goods and services. I can't see how travel wouldn't be included. Now that I think more about it you are probably right. Which would mean if for some strange reason the law was overturned, then I’m pretty sure the officials who approve out of town trips in CA would continue not to approve trips to the states covered by the law. Just use different reasons. Which could open up a whole new can of worms. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:01:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 19:23:33 GMT
Commerce is the exchange of goods and services. I can't see how travel wouldn't be included. But they aren’t banning the commerce part of it. All Californians, including state employees, are allowed to travel to Texas. The State of California will not pay for business travel to forbidden states. That seems quite different to me. That’s true, but a lot of these folks probably won’t go if they are paying for it. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 12, 2020 19:25:20 GMT
But they aren’t banning the commerce part of it. All Californians, including state employees, are allowed to travel to Texas. The State of California will not pay for business travel to forbidden states. That seems quite different to me. That’s true, but a lot of these folks probably won’t go if they are paying for it. Right, but my point is, no one is banned from traveling to Texas. The State of California just isn’t willing to pay for it. |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 12, 2020 19:28:28 GMT
In this day and age of technology, they could always add teleconferencing for those people who can't attend a conference (whatever the reason for no in-person attendance). But that doesn't help Texas out with their $$$ problem, any (if that's Texas's *real* issue). No one can say the information wouldn't be able to be disseminated as a reason for overturning it, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 12, 2020 20:31:24 GMT
Would money spent on a business trip be considered “commerce ”? Commerce is the exchange of goods and services. I can't see how travel wouldn't be included. Wouldn’t it be more of a privilege and not a right? |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 12, 2020 20:32:46 GMT
That’s true, but a lot of these folks probably won’t go if they are paying for it. Right, but my point is, no one is banned from traveling to Texas. The State of California just isn’t willing to pay for it. Exact. It’s a privilege to travel on the company dime, not a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. |
|
Montannie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,486
Location: Big Sky Country
|
Post by Montannie on Feb 12, 2020 20:47:20 GMT
That’s true, but a lot of these folks probably won’t go if they are paying for it. Right, but my point is, no one is banned from traveling to Texas. The State of California just isn’t willing to pay for it. Lucy's right. It's not an infringement on interstate commerce. |
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by RosieKat on Feb 12, 2020 20:54:33 GMT
The state government in Texas likes to meddle in everyone's government business. They got legislation passed to overturn the regulations in Austin and other cities about single-use plastic bags, for example, and they like to pull that crap all the time. But they are for minimal government oversight, you know. /s
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 12, 2020 21:07:23 GMT
I'm no lawyer, I have just seen the Commerce Act to involve some really weird scenarios that would really seem to be local issues. They included it in the filing, so I imagine the Supreme Court will have their say. The closest comparison a quick search showed was litigation under the Violence Against Women Act which involved arguing the violence against women impacted travel which would fall under interstate commerce and would therefore allow Congress to pass a law which would typical be under local jurisdiction. Now the Supreme Court also ruled against, but not so much because travel isn't under the commerce act, but as the connection between violence and interstate commerce was too tenuous.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:01:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 22:56:02 GMT
The state government in Texas likes to meddle in everyone's government business. They got legislation passed to overturn the regulations in Austin and other cities about single-use plastic bags, for example, and they like to pull that crap all the time. But they are for minimal government oversight, you know. /s How is this Texas meddling? In 2018 CALIFORNIA banned travel to 11 states because Cali didn't like those state's stances so decided to meddle in the government business of 11 states. And you see this as Texas being the meddlers? www.csustan.edu/financial-support-services-gateway/staff-faculty/banned-states-assembly-bill-1887Alabama Kansas Kentucky Mississippi Oklahoma North Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas South Carolina Iowa |
|
|
|
Post by Jen in NCal on Feb 12, 2020 23:18:48 GMT
Would money spent on a business trip be considered “commerce ”? Commerce is the exchange of goods and services. I can't see how travel wouldn't be included. They are providing a service for California, not Texas. So it wouldn't be a hindrance to commerce. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 12, 2020 23:20:40 GMT
The state government in Texas likes to meddle in everyone's government business. They got legislation passed to overturn the regulations in Austin and other cities about single-use plastic bags, for example, and they like to pull that crap all the time. But they are for minimal government oversight, you know. /s How is this Texas meddling? In 2018 CALIFORNIA banned travel to 11 states because Cali didn't like those state's stances so decided to meddle in the government business of 11 states. And you see this as Texas being the meddlers? www.csustan.edu/financial-support-services-gateway/staff-faculty/banned-states-assembly-bill-1887Alabama Kansas Kentucky Mississippi Oklahoma North Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas South Carolina Iowa California made a decision about how it would spend its own state funds. Texas is meddling by trying to say they can't make a decision about how to spend their own funds. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:01:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2020 0:41:26 GMT
California made a decision about how it would spend its own state funds. Texas is meddling by trying to say they can't make a decision about how to spend their own funds. I see it completely different than you do. Cali didn't have to pass a law about it. There are other ways to handle state spending than a law defining who and why those states are banned. But, I've realized there is no real democracy among democrats and more and I really don't belong here anymore either. |
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Feb 13, 2020 0:52:01 GMT
The state government in Texas likes to meddle in everyone's government business. They got legislation passed to overturn the regulations in Austin and other cities about single-use plastic bags, for example, and they like to pull that crap all the time. But they are for minimal government oversight, you know. /s How is this Texas meddling? In 2018 CALIFORNIA banned travel to 11 states because Cali didn't like those state's stances so decided to meddle in the government business of 11 states. And you see this as Texas being the meddlers? www.csustan.edu/financial-support-services-gateway/staff-faculty/banned-states-assembly-bill-1887Alabama Kansas Kentucky Mississippi Oklahoma North Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas South Carolina Iowa I think that the person you quoted was talking that Texas the state didn't think it was right for another state to dictate something, but they are perfectly willing to get involved in city business |
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Feb 13, 2020 0:57:41 GMT
California made a decision about how it would spend its own state funds. Texas is meddling by trying to say they can't make a decision about how to spend their own funds. I see it completely different than you do. Cali didn't have to pass a law about it. There are other ways to handle state spending than a law defining who and why those states are banned. But, I've realized there is no real democracy among democrats and more and I really don't belong here anymore either. Damn it, now voltagain is gone too  |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 13, 2020 2:00:38 GMT
I do not understand what just happened here. The discussion seemed pretty civil to me, and all of a sudden we've got a hair flip and "Democrats don't believe in democracy."
Can someone explain to me what happened?
|
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by RosieKat on Feb 13, 2020 2:11:29 GMT
How is this Texas meddling? In 2018 CALIFORNIA banned travel to 11 states because Cali didn't like those state's stances so decided to meddle in the government business of 11 states. And you see this as Texas being the meddlers? Well, shoot, I'm sorry Volt felt the need to leave over this. I'm not really sure what happened, I'm guessing this was the last straw that had been coming? For the purpose of the discussion, I see it as Texas meddling because they are asking the courts to overturn the California law. And yes, the state government here likes to tell everyone else what to do but cry that they are for less government, fewer regulations, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 13, 2020 2:51:03 GMT
I would think each state has the right to set guidelines where they send their employees to out of the State and in the state for that matter. And the only people that they need to justify these decisions to are the residents of said state and not to other states. I would think this would fall under “State’s Rights”. I would think so. I see it completely different than you do. Cali didn't have to pass a law about it. There are other ways to handle state spending than a law defining who and why those states are banned. But, I've realized there is no real democracy among democrats and more and I really don't belong here anymore either. Not sure I understand this. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 13, 2020 5:55:36 GMT
What the heck? I’m very sorry voltagain felt the need to leave.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:01:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2020 14:41:26 GMT
I’m always sorry to see someone pack their bags and go.
In one respect she was right, California could have found another way of handling this. But what California did by passing this law was make a political statement aimed at states passing laws that discriminate against a group of individuals.
And as to Texas waving the old “religious beliefs” flag as justification for discriminating against a group of people, I say phooey it’s wrong and it needs to stop.
Just think how much better this world would be if people stopped discriminating against people because of the color of their skin, or their sex, or their sexual orientation.
Time to get off my 🧼 📦 .
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:01:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2020 16:59:37 GMT
If California hates Texas so bad why are so many Californian's moving here everyday and clogging up the left hand lane on IH35?   (just kidding - sort of)  BTW - Ken Paxton doesn't represent all of us. He is an asshat. |
|
(just kidding - sort of) 