Noem Statement on South Dakota Supreme Court Win

Noem Statement on South Dakota Supreme Court Win 

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today released the following statement in the wake of the Supreme Court siding with South Dakota in the Wayfair case:

“Out-of-state online retailers have, for years, been given an unfair advantage over the businesses that hire in our local communities. Overturning Quill was the right decision, but it is only the first step toward creating an environment in which our hometown businesses can compete and thrive.”

###

8 Replies to “Noem Statement on South Dakota Supreme Court Win”

  1. Anonymous

    The overturning of Quill undermines a core principal of our nation’s founding. Limited government. With this decision, state governments will now be able to exercise the authority of law over entities wholly outside their physical jurisdiction.

    Reply
    1. Troy Jones

      Before I get to the substance, the core principal as outlined by the Founding Fathers, authors of the Federalist Papers, and the intellectuals they relied upon (Montesquie, et. al.) was DIVIDED government (both between legislative, executive and judicial branches and federal and state jurisdictions).

      To the degree there were limits, they were primarily placed on the federal government and not state governments.

      That said, I get your point. It is a complex issue with regard to interstate commerce (state’s can’t regulate and is taxation a form of regulation) and taxation of transactions inside their borders (is this a transaction in the state of the buyer or the seller but it does have to be one or the other which Quill ignored).

      And, besides the inequal treatment of local and online retailers and how if trends continue we might end up by necessity trading our sales tax for an income tax), the question of where the transaction occurred is important to me (which this ruling resolves). I’d much rather have my transactions primarily under the tax jurisdiction of my state than another. Without this ruling, Seller’s domicile will find it harder (if not impossible) to add a tax on my transactions for spending in a state I can’t control.

      Regarding your premise this will allow authority “wholly” outside their jurisdiction, this ruling does not allow it (and it would be deemed Unconstitutional). It basically only defines where certain retail jurisdictions occur and who can impose the taxes on the transaction.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        If a business has no physical presence in a state, it is not within that state’s jurisdiction. Governments should have no authority to regulate the behavior of any single person or entity outside their borders.

        Reply
      2. Anonymous

        I think it is time for Pat to put in a limit on number of characters, so Troy can do something besides write these dissertations on every thread.

        Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Will she retract the statements she made during the primary debates where she essentially said that South Dakota was going to lose and it was because Jackley was incompetent and botched the case?

    Reply
  3. Troy Jones

    3:49,

    I get your point. I disagree though. The business creates a cyber presence when they agree to enter into a transaction (or advertise or allow me to access their website) with me. The concept of physical being predominant is no longer relevant in today’s world.

    I prefer to them entering into a transaction here vs. me entering into a transaction there. Before this ruling, there was the illusion/delusion of the transaction occurring in neither or both (unclear). Now it is clear. And conforms to the practical realities of a digital world.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.