First i checked the CDC claims you presented , for the only state which had 0 ways to legally access raw milk (lousiana), in that document, and they had legalized it in 2024.

Then i checked if OTHER states had changed as well compared to the outdated CDC source and i wrote that according to the other source, 3 did.

What did i mischaracterize?

Keep in mind i don't drink milk in general (it's not that normal in Italy, except for breakfast for some people, but i don't have sweet breakfasts). I don't like milk in coffee, i only buy milk to cook some dishes like cheese sauces for pasta or purè or whatever.

Raw milk was always something niche in italy which you bought "under the table" from farmers especially in the mountains if you wanted that, and it isn't a political topic. I knew about it being "relevant" for the US (at least for some groups) because some "paleo" guys push for steak&milk in rightwing twitter so there are some people super determined to make it legal and so on.

I think foie gras was illegal in California for a while, still can't be produced there, but can be imported from other states or internationally (or something silly like that).

I simply don't think though that the commerce clause allows for banning interstate commerce of any kind lol. The way it was written and the way it was used and interpreted in the first century after it was in the constitution make it very clear it wasn't intended at all to reduce freedom of commerce in any way (between states).

It was strictly and only intended to be a clause that made trade between states smoother, never an impediment to any kind of interstate trade. So the commerce clause doesn't give congress the power to tell states what they CAN'T trade, ever, no exception, between them, that's my interpretation. It can be used to FORCE some states to accept trade incoming against their will or to not make them ban exports inside the USA.

FDA can exist as an advisory body for states not to need a specific agency to make scientifical assessments, but nothing should be banned inside the USA by the federal government, that's the idea.

Luciom, as a general observation, I don't think if the role of the federal government were reduced as much as you'd like to see it reduced, the USA could function as a cohesive country. It would be more of a coalition akin to the EU, perhaps.

Lucio wants an enormous federal government, how else is his prison state supposed to work?

I am unsurprised that Google's algorithm is feeding you different information than it is feeding me. This morning was the first time in my life that I have done a google search related to raw milk.

Fact is we know it could because it happened already as mentioned more than once.

The USA was already #1 in the world , or very close, for military power and per capita gdp and so on before the federal income tax existed, before the commerce clause was interpreted the way it is today, before prohibitionism, before the war on drug, before the FDA existed, before EPA existed, before the DoE existed and so on.

I thought that was the case, which is why i tried incognito as well ("accedi" button is there, so i am not logged with any google account, this is "raw" search with 0 user data modifying the algo)



At this point my best guess is geolocalization, even if it's google.com it plausibly uses the fact that i am from italy, and that somehow means i get completly different results from you.

The Roman empire was pretty powerful before gunpowder existed. I'm not sure you can just say "it worked that way some time in history so it would work again today," I don't think that's how that works.

But no one.was talking about accessing raw milk, the discussion was selling it retail, such as at Walmart.

not sure why you think i want more inmates as a % of the population than there are already, but anyway state prisons exist

This is a scary glimpse into your ability to average over 100 post/day for months in this forum.
Just regurgitate the top results like a good boy.

Btw I have been wondering where you find so much freetime to post/reply that much (and you also mentionned this isn't the only place you participate in).
I seem to remember you mentionning working in tourism, or was it real estate.
This is almost like you are assigned at home or have a fake job, maybe even a governement job like city tourist guide.

You are posting at an ungodly rate and it takes an insane amount of time to also read the multiple threads you participate in.

But the onus is on you to defend the claim those changes were indispensable "because times changed" not on me given that federal powers were far smaller in the past and the USA worked very well anyway.

And we aren't talking 2000 years ago, we are talking 120 years ago.

I mean, I get it, you also think that the UK could function just fine with Victorian era laws and regulations etc. And I guess in some narrow meaning of "could function" you're probably right. My gut feeling is that technological advances of the last 100+ years make the argument "society as it was structured 120 years ago would function just as well or better today" invalid, but I'd have no idea how to even start to try to prove that.

Yoiu are describing so-called dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. It is far from obvious from the plain language of the Commerce Clause that the framers included the provision in the Constitution primarily because of a concern that individual states would embrace protectionism that was bad for the union as a whole. The interpretation you are embracing is itself a considerable inference from the plain language.

Keep in mind that if you had just scrolled to the third item in the search results, and you had read the article, you would have gotten information that was accurate as of the date of the article and relatively up to date.

Well we could begin by stating that progress helps you defend your country.
Luciom seems to separate military progress and everything else.
You can wish as much you want to be isolated and frozen in time, inevitably some other country is gonna come at you with everything he has.
Now you can chose to stand your ground with swords and shield vs missiles...
Or you play the game.

Well I think he's more saying that you could roll back a bunch of laws, regulations, and reduce the federal government significantly in power and scope and it wouldn't have a detrimental effect. I don't think I can prove otherwise, but intuitively that seems wrong to me.

Well i know my interpretation is minoritarian and i don't claim otherwise. But it is a coherent answer to questions about what i think of federal powers.

But i think federalist paper 11 is very clear about the matter. Most of it is dedicated to how important it is to have a federal trade policy (with foreign countries), so the idea that the commerce clause gives congress all the power to decide tariffs and whatnot is uncontroversial for everyone.

The last part makes it clear why the commerce clause include states

An unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions, not only for the supply of reciprocal wants at home, but for exportation to foreign markets. The veins of commerce in every part will be replenished, and will acquire additional motion and vigor from a free circulation of the commodities of every part. Commercial enterprise will have much greater scope, from the diversity in the productions of different States. When the staple of one fails from a bad harvest or unproductive crop, it can call to its aid the staple of another. The variety, not less than the value, of products for exportation contributes to the activity of foreign commerce. It can be conducted upon much better terms with a large number of materials of a given value than with a small number of materials of the same value; arising from the competitions of trade and from the fluctations of markets. Particular articles may be in great demand at certain periods, and unsalable at others; but if there be a variety of articles, it can scarcely happen that they should all be at one time in the latter predicament, and on this account the operations of the merchant would be less liable to any considerable obstruction or stagnation. The speculative trader will at once perceive the force of these observations, and will acknowledge that the aggregate balance of the commerce of the United States would bid fair to be much more favorable than that of the thirteen States without union or with partial unions.

It may perhaps be replied to this, that whether the States are united or disunited, there would still be an intimate intercourse between them which would answer the same ends; this intercourse would be fettered, interrupted, and narrowed by a multiplicity of causes, which in the course of these papers have been amply detailed. A unity of commercial, as well as political, interests, can only result from a unity of government.


https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed11.asp

The ONLY reason states are in the commerce clause is , by reading this federalist paper as well, to smooth the trade between states, not to fetter, interrupt or narrow it...

But yes i know many people disagree, mostly because it allows them to have what they prefer as a form of government, the regulatory federal state.

Actually i think the aggregate effect would be massively positive.

Yes i don't deny that, which is why i wasn't ironic, i learnt a lesson on google snippets on topics i have no prior knowledge about, can't be trusted at all

JFC dude.

You said:

Your own source said:

And I'm not even citing the information from your source that made it clear that the sale of cow's milk was highly restricted in many other states (or in some states apparently is legal only if the milk is labelled as pet food.)

You are mixing 2 different things. I never claimed you cannot have new laws when things change. I am claiming the balance of power federal vs state in the USA that was present 120 years ago was better for society.

And btw in the UK, you have MORE federalism today than you had in Victorian era, afaik. Like Scotland is more independent in writing it's rules and so on than it was in Victorian era, am i wrong?

You are belatedly moving toward the model i prefer in the UK.

Do you think Scotland having more devolved powers is a disaster? because you are claiming me asking for Texas (and the other states) to have more powers would be a disaster.

oh my bad i went with their map, so their text doesn't follow their map.

I literally clicked the red states in the map (and i have missed the tiny RI).

You keep comparing apple and oranges, like not long ago when you were arguing you had nothing in common with some other country in Europe (was it romania) and you couldn't care less, all that in a larger comparison with USA federal gov.
You are completely omitting how things got there and formed.
I.e Europe nowadays is a fairly recent concept and reality that has nothing to do with how USA organically formed.
Same with comparing with UK.
You are just simplifying this way to much, mostly to win the argument.

I really don't know what sort of powers Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have now or historically so I can't comment. As I said, I have no backing for my claim, it just intuitively feels wrong to me that having 52 or whatever different sovereign entities all doing completely their own thing would allow for enough cohesion for the US to be a "country" in any meaningful sense of the word.