| ▲ | panny 4 hours ago |
| Amendment 10 of the US Constitution: >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Where in the Constitution does it delegate authority over AI to the federal government? Just curious. |
|
| ▲ | yesfitz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Probably the Commerce Clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause |
| |
| ▲ | ljlolel 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | So then wouldn’t cover open source | | |
| ▲ | lokar 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | they 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. | | |
| ▲ | pfdietz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, AI regulation is squarely in the wheelhouse of the Commerce Clause. | | |
| ▲ | gopher_space an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think we've found any topic or situation that doesn't fall under the Commerce Clause. | | |
| ▲ | iAMkenough an hour ago | parent [-] | | If 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. |
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tristanj 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's covered by the interstate commerce clause. |
|
| ▲ | chris_money202 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Congress 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. |
|
| ▲ | tootie 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It'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. |
| |
| ▲ | toast0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My 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. | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And you expect the current Federal government to come up with "sensible rules?" |
|
|
| ▲ | dosisking 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
