NO state can pass a law that says you must buy things made in their state can NOT buy things made out of state. This is a long time restriction based on the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
This was a big concern during the repeal of Prohibition, thus the addition of the second Section of that repeal, so that the Commerce Clause could NOT be used to override State Restrictions as to who could buy and sell alcohol in that state.
The Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Third Paragraph of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power.....To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The repeal of Prohibition, the 21st Amendment:
Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Thus Alcohol regulation by the State do NOT come under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE DOES. The Commerce clause has a long history of being used to permit people to do things within a state that the state wanted to restrict (Alcohol was the item in the late 1800s where the Commerce Clause was used to undo State restrictions on an item that was also produced in other states, the Second Section of the Repeal was to address these cases, to make it clear those cases were still bad law under repeal).
I have NOT read the opinion of the Judge, but somehow he determined this favors in state producers over out of state producers and as such a violation of the Commerce Clause. If the state can show it is NOT favoring in state producers, then the Commerce clause is inapplicable and the law is constitutional.
The Commerce clause has been ruled to be ban on restrictions on regulations when the restrictions affect out of state producers more then it does in state producers of the same or similar items.
I have NOT read the underlying law but given its nature I do NOT see how it affects out of state producers more then in state producers. The Judge saw a way, but I doubt it will be upheld on appeal.
Side note: If you read cases on the Commerce Clause, cases before 1919 involving Alcohol are still "Good Law" except as to Alcohol. i.e. can be cited in cases like this one as to how the Commerce Clause restricts state's ability to regulate commerce.
As to your "plutonium rods fueling my Hummer" Plutonium is already regulated by the Federal Government and the Federal Government has authorize the states to regulate it, so the states can BAN "plutonium rods fueling my Hummer" under those Federal Regulation.
Second, Plutonium is like Gunpowder, an inherently dangerous material and as such is subject, like gunpowder, to strict liability i.e, if anyone is harmed by it, you pay. even if you are NOT at fault.
Third given that Plutonium is an "inherently dangerous material" any regulation is deemed a safety regulation and safety regulations are part of the reserve police power to the states, i.e. The states can put almost any regulation on Plutonium they want to, as long as it can be justified somehow.
Now, occasionally Safety regulations are viewed as affecting inter state commerce and the two "Rights" come into conflict (This was common prior to prohibition when it came to Alcohol, thus the various pre-1920 court ruling as to Alcohol). The issue is then WHICH law to favor, the courts had to balance between the two when Congress had NOT spoken on the issue (Congress has "spoke" as to Plutonium but prior to Prohibition had NOT done so as to Alcohol thus the huge number of cases involving alcohol prior to 1919).
When the two concepts, Police Power vs Commerce Clause, the courts often decide those cases on a case by case basis, looking at the intent and affect of the state law and any applicable Federal Law or regulation. In cases involving actual movement within a state, the courts tend to go with the State Regulations for the Regulations clearly are the same for in state and out of State shippers. On the other hand, if the rule imposes restrictions on the border of the state as something is shipped into the state and somehow those rules are NOT enforced, or as restrictive when imposed in an instate shipper, the courts have been know to strike down the restriction as violating the Commerce clause.
The best way to show this is by the following hypothetical situation. A state, for safety reasons passes a law requiring all Gun Powder to be shipped on horse draw wagons (No spark or flame to ignite the gunpowder). This rule may not affect in state producers of gunpowder for most of their customers may be within the distance a horse draw wagon can haul the gunpowder to. On the other hand such a requirement would prevent any out of state producer of gunpowder to ship into that state any gunpowder for the distance is to far for such horse draw shipments from out of state. In such a situation I see the Courts striking down the state law as violating the Commence clause even through it is within the "Police Power" reserved to the state.
On the other hand if a state would require all such gunpowder be shipped in metal sealed boxes for safety reasons, out of state makers of Gun Powder can meet that requirement by using similar metal boxes, an attack on the rule because a gun powder maker wanted to use cheaper wooden boxes would fail, for the court would rule it is a reasonable safety regulation within the Police Power of the State AND does NOT favor in state producers of Gun powder.
An exception to the above would be a State requiring Gun Powder in a metal box of a size NOT normally used in the Industry. In state gun powder makers could get a hold of such boxes do to the demand for such boxes within the state, but out of state gun powder producers could not for no other state permits that size to be used AND it is NOT a industry standard. In such a case that is a clear case of favoring in state domestic producers over out of state producers and as such a violation of the Commerce Clause. In this case a Safety regulation is being used to favor in state producers instead of being uniform for both in state and out of state producers and as such a violation of the Commerce Clause.
Thus if your state would permit in state registered a "plutonium rods fueling... Hummer" it can NOT prohibit out of state registered a "plutonium rods fueling... Hummer" but could ban BOTH or permit BOTH.
= new reply since forum marked as read
