Thanks, I'm not sure what we'd do without your helpful advise, being an expert pilot and all.

I'm not sure where in the Consitution it says states may enforce federal laws if they believe the feds aren't doing it. I do see a part that says only the feds may make laws about immigration though.

Your last statement just seems to be racist fear mongering. Do you have states on the breakdown of murders? Or are the dirty wetbacks just a convient scapegoat for a police force which is lazy and inept (as they all pretty much are)?

Your thinking is way off here. First, by definition, cops != millitas. Not even close. Second, AZ already can arrest people for murder, illegal alien or not. There is a difference between civilians and armies invading, and AZ is not being invaded by anything. There may be a crime spree, but that doesn't mean you go to martial law. And even then, the consitution still applies.

What AZ should be doing is undercutting the reason for crimelords to be there; legalize pot would be one thing, since the drug trade I believe is a large part of the violence there.

You're an idiot. I cited that first case to clearly illustrate how stupid the courts ruling is (and I will gladly tell them so). No where in Zippo or the first case I cited do they explain why ordering over the internet is different than mail order or phone. You can have a website which offers phone numbers / mail order forms and not be subject to the other state's laws, but having a computer handle the order taking instead of a person changes things, how exactly? That case highlights the courts faulty reasoning.

Then you ignore the second link completely... I supposed because it backs my statement that the Zippo case is junk.

Yes, the path you describe is exactly the problem. You stepped outside your field, and did a poor job. Not your fault really, nobody should have asked you to do it, and I understand that you probably couldn't say no. But someone with the proper skills could have done it correctly and probably around the same kind of cost.

Compatibility mode downgrades to work like IE7, not IE6.

Oh, please. You don't see a distinction between "your floppy discs ended up in our state" and "you receive orders from residents of our state and ship product to those residents"?

Not really, no. And you don't see a difference between this MA law and business not having to collect sales tax for out of state residences?

I have, repeatedly. Zippo. International Shoe. Maritz. Cybersell.

And I have repeatedly explained why this doesn't apply. Its not an example, and it doesn't even apply expect in Western PA.

[Citation needed]

Oh, I guess that's why when I purchase from newegg they collect sales tax. Oh wait, they don't. Or when I buy from a catalog with no physical presense in my state, they collect sales tax. Oh wait, again, they don't.

One of the things that might be throwing you off is that you keep going to the dormant commerce clause. Specific personal jurisdiction is where you want to look first - the state court needs personal jurisdiction in order to even reach the question of dormant commerce clause.

The main thing throwing you off is that the case you keep refering to 1) was never decided at a national level, which is why different federal courts have had differing opinions, and 2) believe that the courts have it right when treating internet orders differently from mail order. Read this case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=docket&no=9820770CV0

And explain how having a phone number to place orders, or a mail order form to place orders is in any real way different from allowing the website to take orders? It doesn't make sense, just like the Zippo case doesn't make sense.

The Zippo sliding scale is junk, and you need to realize that. Other courts have dismissed the sliding scale, and for good reason: it doesn't make sense to treat the internet differently than phone or mail order.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ca8/case_no-09-2914/case_id-0/

Sorry, can't find anything related to that at all.

This is the case referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota

No, it's just the most recent test.

The case establishes a three prong test.. did you read it?

In favor of a slightly broader one that includes more out-of-state corporations being subject to state law.

No, courts have generally been all over the place.

The one I cited? Yes. It is.

All the information I found says its limited to the Western PA federal district courts. So unless you can show otherwise, no it isn't.

I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to get at here... If a mail order company sends catalogs to residents of a state, they have specific personal jurisdiction in that state.

*sigh* That's contrary to pretty much all caselaw to date. But please feel free to cite caselaw which says otherwise, because you sound like you're making stuff up. The courts have said that businesses must have a nexus within the state to be subject to state laws, and have also said merely advertising in a state doesn't meet that requirement.

The internet does put a twist in that, since residents request packets, but the courts haven't made the technical leap to acknowledge that, and treat them the same as a mail order company who sends catalogs to residents.

Yes, and merely sending a catalog doesn't subject a business to the rules of the residents state. So the whole push vs pull point is moot.

It was something like Quint vs ND, which sent to the US Supreme Court, I believe.

You miss the mark again though; for one, that's not the ONLY test to determine if a company might be subject to state law. Second, its vague, and other courts have rejected it. Notibly though, this isn't a supreme court case, whereas the one cited earlier is.

You act as if the internet throws some new twist here though. Please explain why you think a web server processing orders is any different than mail order companies processing orders and sending out catalogs?

The transaction would happen on a server in India, and still be outside the influence of MA.

Oh, that case also involved a company which HAD EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE OF WA. If I'm buying advertising in MA, I (nor any of my employees) ever need to actually ENTER MA to do so.

Nice try, but a more recent ruling (in 1992, vs. your 1940s case) seems to have undone that, which someone else on this thread already pointed out.

How is it the company's fault that your grandfather has exceedingly weak teeth? If lots of people were chipping their teeth on it, that'd be one thing, but some old guy who's dental hygene may be a factor?

Massachusetts could say "you can't advertise here unless you follow all our laws", since we're considering that an action within the state

No it can't. The Commerce Clause in the US Constitution would forbid this.

They would not have no obligations, provided they didn't advertise to Massachusetts residents, such as via the Internet, national newspapers or television networks. Massachusetts courts would not have jurisdiction to place fines on the businesses, nor could a Mass. resident sue them for breach of security in a Mass. court. They could sue them in the state court where the business is, but it would then apply its own laws.

Advertising, via any of those means does not consitute a substanal nexus. A company can do all of those things and still cannot be held to MA's law. A MA resident can sue, and the company and refuse to show, but no one will ever get their money. If the company does show, Federal courts will throw out MA's law. Stuff like this has already happened; been there done that with mail order, and again with internet sales.

As I said above, advertising to residents of a state is sufficient to "reach into" the state and give the courts there jurisdiction over you, according to the Supreme Court. Their actions - advertising - did occur within the boundaries of Massachusetts.

You're wrong.

Conversely, if a company based in one state advertises in another state, sells goods to residents of the other state, ships goods there, takes orders from citizens there, etc., why shouldn't they be held to the same consumer protection standards of business that are based there?

Because Federal law says where State's laws end (namely, at the boundries of a state). That they advertise is irrelevent. I can advertise all I want in MA, and it doesn't make me subject to MA law.

Should I have to abide by MA law if the resident physically travels to my state? How about if they mail me a piece of paper in liue of showing up? Now how about the send me the same information which is on the paper electronically?

Yup, in none of those cases do I need to care about what MA says. And the US Supreme Court has already said as much.