Would it be legal for a US State to ban exports of a natural resource?












2















I am interested in whether a US state constitution could be legally amended to ban exports of specific natural resources (such as coal, lithium or copper) outside it's own state borders.



If such a ban were successful, there would presumably be a fusillade of federal lawsuits from entities that had already invested in the mining of export-restricted resources in the state. What damages if succesful, could the state be liable for? Would the state have a defense against such lawsuits such as force majure? I am particularly interested in contract termination damages if a miner had force majure clauses in their contracts with customers.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

    – George White
    1 hour ago











  • Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

    – A. K.
    24 mins ago
















2















I am interested in whether a US state constitution could be legally amended to ban exports of specific natural resources (such as coal, lithium or copper) outside it's own state borders.



If such a ban were successful, there would presumably be a fusillade of federal lawsuits from entities that had already invested in the mining of export-restricted resources in the state. What damages if succesful, could the state be liable for? Would the state have a defense against such lawsuits such as force majure? I am particularly interested in contract termination damages if a miner had force majure clauses in their contracts with customers.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

    – George White
    1 hour ago











  • Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

    – A. K.
    24 mins ago














2












2








2








I am interested in whether a US state constitution could be legally amended to ban exports of specific natural resources (such as coal, lithium or copper) outside it's own state borders.



If such a ban were successful, there would presumably be a fusillade of federal lawsuits from entities that had already invested in the mining of export-restricted resources in the state. What damages if succesful, could the state be liable for? Would the state have a defense against such lawsuits such as force majure? I am particularly interested in contract termination damages if a miner had force majure clauses in their contracts with customers.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I am interested in whether a US state constitution could be legally amended to ban exports of specific natural resources (such as coal, lithium or copper) outside it's own state borders.



If such a ban were successful, there would presumably be a fusillade of federal lawsuits from entities that had already invested in the mining of export-restricted resources in the state. What damages if succesful, could the state be liable for? Would the state have a defense against such lawsuits such as force majure? I am particularly interested in contract termination damages if a miner had force majure clauses in their contracts with customers.







united-states commerce federal-law state-power






share|improve this question









New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 25 mins ago









A. K.

1,2921127




1,2921127






New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 hours ago









Brian ToppingBrian Topping

1142




1142




New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

    – George White
    1 hour ago











  • Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

    – A. K.
    24 mins ago



















  • Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

    – George White
    1 hour ago











  • Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

    – A. K.
    24 mins ago

















Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

– George White
1 hour ago





Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

– George White
1 hour ago













Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

– A. K.
24 mins ago





Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

– A. K.
24 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














No



A state may not do that.



The US Constitution Art. I section 8 says:





  1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.




...





  1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;




Art I section 10:





  1. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.




The power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign commerce is exclusive to Congress, no state may exercise it. The power to tax imports and exports is only given in vary limited degree to states, and only by specific permission of Congress.



The Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that a state may not favor its own citizens over citizens of other states in taxation or in commercial privileges, although it may restrict state services to state residents, or charge non-residents higher fees, as for tuition at public colleges.



Even with the consent of Congress, or if passed by Congress, such a law might well be precluded by the Equal Protection clause. Congress may prohibit specific items from being moved in interstate commerce, or it may limit, license, or tax them. But all such regulations must be uniform across the United states, and may not apply only to a specific state.



Regulation of interstate commerce can include regulation of purely intra-state transactions, if they are held to "affect" interstate commerce. This power is very wide-ranging.






share|improve this answer

































    0














    I agree with David Siegel's answer but I think its always important in the law to consider what it would take to get what you want. I will say it is possible but not as an export prohibition per se and practically may fail.



    The state could use its 5th amendment powers of eminent domain to take possesion of all of the desired raw materials and relevant mineral rights for just compensation thus making them all property of The State. Expensive and not sure what the incentive is, but as laws are now, permissible if there is some pubic benefit. At this point the relevant natural resources would be property of the state and could therefore control where it goes such as keeping the resources in state.



    Now assuming that neither budgetary restrictions nor a lawsuit were successful at stopping this measure (two big ifs), The federal government could still take the resources from The State in the same way under eminent domain.



    In summary it is possible if:




    1. Your state has large excesses of cash and a desire to be an irrational economic actor AND

    2. the federal government is shutdown for a very very long time preventing operations of the courts and/or solicitor generals office.






    share|improve this answer

























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "617"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Brian Topping is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38391%2fwould-it-be-legal-for-a-us-state-to-ban-exports-of-a-natural-resource%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3














      No



      A state may not do that.



      The US Constitution Art. I section 8 says:





      1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.




      ...





      1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;




      Art I section 10:





      1. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.




      The power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign commerce is exclusive to Congress, no state may exercise it. The power to tax imports and exports is only given in vary limited degree to states, and only by specific permission of Congress.



      The Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that a state may not favor its own citizens over citizens of other states in taxation or in commercial privileges, although it may restrict state services to state residents, or charge non-residents higher fees, as for tuition at public colleges.



      Even with the consent of Congress, or if passed by Congress, such a law might well be precluded by the Equal Protection clause. Congress may prohibit specific items from being moved in interstate commerce, or it may limit, license, or tax them. But all such regulations must be uniform across the United states, and may not apply only to a specific state.



      Regulation of interstate commerce can include regulation of purely intra-state transactions, if they are held to "affect" interstate commerce. This power is very wide-ranging.






      share|improve this answer






























        3














        No



        A state may not do that.



        The US Constitution Art. I section 8 says:





        1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.




        ...





        1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;




        Art I section 10:





        1. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.




        The power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign commerce is exclusive to Congress, no state may exercise it. The power to tax imports and exports is only given in vary limited degree to states, and only by specific permission of Congress.



        The Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that a state may not favor its own citizens over citizens of other states in taxation or in commercial privileges, although it may restrict state services to state residents, or charge non-residents higher fees, as for tuition at public colleges.



        Even with the consent of Congress, or if passed by Congress, such a law might well be precluded by the Equal Protection clause. Congress may prohibit specific items from being moved in interstate commerce, or it may limit, license, or tax them. But all such regulations must be uniform across the United states, and may not apply only to a specific state.



        Regulation of interstate commerce can include regulation of purely intra-state transactions, if they are held to "affect" interstate commerce. This power is very wide-ranging.






        share|improve this answer




























          3












          3








          3







          No



          A state may not do that.



          The US Constitution Art. I section 8 says:





          1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.




          ...





          1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;




          Art I section 10:





          1. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.




          The power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign commerce is exclusive to Congress, no state may exercise it. The power to tax imports and exports is only given in vary limited degree to states, and only by specific permission of Congress.



          The Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that a state may not favor its own citizens over citizens of other states in taxation or in commercial privileges, although it may restrict state services to state residents, or charge non-residents higher fees, as for tuition at public colleges.



          Even with the consent of Congress, or if passed by Congress, such a law might well be precluded by the Equal Protection clause. Congress may prohibit specific items from being moved in interstate commerce, or it may limit, license, or tax them. But all such regulations must be uniform across the United states, and may not apply only to a specific state.



          Regulation of interstate commerce can include regulation of purely intra-state transactions, if they are held to "affect" interstate commerce. This power is very wide-ranging.






          share|improve this answer















          No



          A state may not do that.



          The US Constitution Art. I section 8 says:





          1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.




          ...





          1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;




          Art I section 10:





          1. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.




          The power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign commerce is exclusive to Congress, no state may exercise it. The power to tax imports and exports is only given in vary limited degree to states, and only by specific permission of Congress.



          The Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that a state may not favor its own citizens over citizens of other states in taxation or in commercial privileges, although it may restrict state services to state residents, or charge non-residents higher fees, as for tuition at public colleges.



          Even with the consent of Congress, or if passed by Congress, such a law might well be precluded by the Equal Protection clause. Congress may prohibit specific items from being moved in interstate commerce, or it may limit, license, or tax them. But all such regulations must be uniform across the United states, and may not apply only to a specific state.



          Regulation of interstate commerce can include regulation of purely intra-state transactions, if they are held to "affect" interstate commerce. This power is very wide-ranging.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 1 hour ago

























          answered 2 hours ago









          David SiegelDavid Siegel

          14.3k2855




          14.3k2855























              0














              I agree with David Siegel's answer but I think its always important in the law to consider what it would take to get what you want. I will say it is possible but not as an export prohibition per se and practically may fail.



              The state could use its 5th amendment powers of eminent domain to take possesion of all of the desired raw materials and relevant mineral rights for just compensation thus making them all property of The State. Expensive and not sure what the incentive is, but as laws are now, permissible if there is some pubic benefit. At this point the relevant natural resources would be property of the state and could therefore control where it goes such as keeping the resources in state.



              Now assuming that neither budgetary restrictions nor a lawsuit were successful at stopping this measure (two big ifs), The federal government could still take the resources from The State in the same way under eminent domain.



              In summary it is possible if:




              1. Your state has large excesses of cash and a desire to be an irrational economic actor AND

              2. the federal government is shutdown for a very very long time preventing operations of the courts and/or solicitor generals office.






              share|improve this answer






























                0














                I agree with David Siegel's answer but I think its always important in the law to consider what it would take to get what you want. I will say it is possible but not as an export prohibition per se and practically may fail.



                The state could use its 5th amendment powers of eminent domain to take possesion of all of the desired raw materials and relevant mineral rights for just compensation thus making them all property of The State. Expensive and not sure what the incentive is, but as laws are now, permissible if there is some pubic benefit. At this point the relevant natural resources would be property of the state and could therefore control where it goes such as keeping the resources in state.



                Now assuming that neither budgetary restrictions nor a lawsuit were successful at stopping this measure (two big ifs), The federal government could still take the resources from The State in the same way under eminent domain.



                In summary it is possible if:




                1. Your state has large excesses of cash and a desire to be an irrational economic actor AND

                2. the federal government is shutdown for a very very long time preventing operations of the courts and/or solicitor generals office.






                share|improve this answer




























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  I agree with David Siegel's answer but I think its always important in the law to consider what it would take to get what you want. I will say it is possible but not as an export prohibition per se and practically may fail.



                  The state could use its 5th amendment powers of eminent domain to take possesion of all of the desired raw materials and relevant mineral rights for just compensation thus making them all property of The State. Expensive and not sure what the incentive is, but as laws are now, permissible if there is some pubic benefit. At this point the relevant natural resources would be property of the state and could therefore control where it goes such as keeping the resources in state.



                  Now assuming that neither budgetary restrictions nor a lawsuit were successful at stopping this measure (two big ifs), The federal government could still take the resources from The State in the same way under eminent domain.



                  In summary it is possible if:




                  1. Your state has large excesses of cash and a desire to be an irrational economic actor AND

                  2. the federal government is shutdown for a very very long time preventing operations of the courts and/or solicitor generals office.






                  share|improve this answer















                  I agree with David Siegel's answer but I think its always important in the law to consider what it would take to get what you want. I will say it is possible but not as an export prohibition per se and practically may fail.



                  The state could use its 5th amendment powers of eminent domain to take possesion of all of the desired raw materials and relevant mineral rights for just compensation thus making them all property of The State. Expensive and not sure what the incentive is, but as laws are now, permissible if there is some pubic benefit. At this point the relevant natural resources would be property of the state and could therefore control where it goes such as keeping the resources in state.



                  Now assuming that neither budgetary restrictions nor a lawsuit were successful at stopping this measure (two big ifs), The federal government could still take the resources from The State in the same way under eminent domain.



                  In summary it is possible if:




                  1. Your state has large excesses of cash and a desire to be an irrational economic actor AND

                  2. the federal government is shutdown for a very very long time preventing operations of the courts and/or solicitor generals office.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 20 mins ago

























                  answered 25 mins ago









                  A. K.A. K.

                  1,2921127




                  1,2921127






















                      Brian Topping is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Brian Topping is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Brian Topping is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Brian Topping is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38391%2fwould-it-be-legal-for-a-us-state-to-ban-exports-of-a-natural-resource%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

                      Single-Malt-Whisky

                      Czorneboh