Here's something:
From
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/antitrust.html:
"antitrust: an overview
Trusts and monopolies are concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few.
Such conglomerations of economic resources are thought to be injurious to the public and individuals because such trusts minimize, if not obliterate normal marketplace competition, and yield undesirable price controls. These, in turn, cause markets to stagnate and sap individual initiative.
To prevent trusts from creating restraints on trade or commerce and reducing competition, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. The Sherman Act was designed to maintain economic liberty, and to eliminate restraints on trade and competition. The Sherman Act is the main source of Antitrust law.
The Sherman Act is a Federal statute and as such has a scope limited by Constitutional constraints on the Federal government. The commerce clause, however, allows for a very wide interpretation and application of this act. The Act applies to all transactions and business involved in interstate commerce. If the activities are local, the act applies to transactions affecting interstate commerce. The latter phrase has been interpretted to allow broad application of the Sherman Act.
Most if not all states have comparable statutes prohibiting monopolistic conduct, price fixing agreements, and other acts in restraint of trade having strictly local impact."
If the state gov'ts force consumers to purchase from in-state businesses aren't they violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by retarding economic liberty and imposing restraints on trade and competition?
Is the argument of rightful tax collection an end run around the Sherman Antitrust Act?
Is forcing the consumer to purchase only from in-state businesses under the threat of penalty also a violation of the RICO statutes?
quoted from RICO: (source ->
http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp#1962d <-)
"Extortion
What laypeople call extortion, lawyers call a violation of the Hobbs Act. The Hobbs Act states:
Whoever in anyway or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
As used in this section:
(1) The term "robbery" means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
(2) The term
"extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear,
or under color of official right.
(3) The term "commerce" means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States, all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof, all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State and all commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
Extortion vs. Legitimate Exercise of Government Power
Extortion "under color of official right" should not be confused with the legitimate exercise of government power. Governmental power, by its nature, is legalized extortion, e.g.,: unless you abide by the law, you'll go to jail; unless you buy car insurance, your license will be revoked; unless you pay taxes, you'll go to jail and be fined; unless you register your gun, your gun will be confiscated. But for the government's authority to jail people and fine people and confiscate their property, how many of us would abide by the law? If we all naturally treated each other in a decent manner, there would be no need for government. From the first day that man emerged from the wilderness, however, most political philosophers and most of our experiences have taught us that if left to our own devices, people will rob from each other, abuse each other, and kill each other. Thus, pursuant to the basic social contract upon which all governments are based, people have consented to the government's use of extortion to keep all of us in line and to make sure that we all abide by the prevailing standards of decency.
The government's power to extort proper behavior from each of us is limited only by "due process," i.e., the government can't send someone to jail unless they first receive a fair trial, a law cannot be enforced unless it is properly approved by our elected officials and thereafter monitored by our courts, etc. A citizen cannot complain that he or she is being extorted by their government if the government is simply enforcing a law that complies with society's sense of due process. It is difficult to imagine when an official act of government could constitute extortion. When considering official government action, the appropriateness of the government's action is measured by the Constitution -- not by the criminal law of extortion. If the government does not have the power to enforce a law against a citizen (i.e., if the government does not have the power to extort certain behavior from a citizen), the law is unconstitutional - not extortionistic."
And in light of the last sentence, if not extortion, then unconstitutional?
I may not be able to coherently argue the point, but, it most certainly appears to me that there is something wrong with an entity forcing consumers to purchase goods from a source or sources for the purpose of solely benefitting said entity. I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds like it is flirting with the line. Maybe someone with a law degree could connect the dots.
M. Gipson
