Probably the Commerce Clause.
replySo then wouldn’t cover open source
replythey often argue that allowing something in one state, even limited to that state, impacts commerce in other states. I think they would use a similar argument here.
replyYes, AI regulation is squarely in the wheelhouse of the Commerce Clause.
replyI don't think we've found any topic or situation that doesn't fall under the Commerce Clause.
replyIf there is such a topic or situation, we can always fall back to the "national security" rationale. That covers everything else the federal government wants to impose on states.
replydeleted
replyIt's covered by the interstate commerce clause.
replyHow does the inter states commerce clause block a state from blocking data center buildout?
replyCongress is allowed to make laws (covered by the constitution) if that law grants the federal government the authority over something then the law is covered by the constitution.
replyIt's perfectly reasonable to want one set of rules instead of a patchwork across very open borders. But just saying "you can't do it" is pretty lame compared to actually coming up with sensible rules first.
replyMy understanding is that courts usually require actual constitutional federal regulations to exist for Federal Supremecy to apply. But this is just cooercive regulation through barely related funding. I believe that's generally legally acceptable.
replyAnd you expect the current Federal government to come up with "sensible rules?"
reply[flagged]
replyYou still have the PAC part to work out.
replyAmerican-funded Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC)
replydeleted
reply