Would it be legal for a US State to ban exports of a natural resource?Is it legal to search for commerce sites listing items at erroneously low prices and exploiting such errors?Must the reason for a permanent ban for a paid online game be provided?What happens if Congress declares war, but POTUS refuses to fight it?Do (any) US State Governors have legal authority to preemptively pardon persons of a state crime?Can one sell allowed product and “give” unallowed product for free?Is it legal for a vending machine (company) to offer additional purchase options after currency has been inserted?When is the effective date for travel ban?Default Governing State for NDAlegal recourse against a company with no contact informationFor products shipped across state lines, who gets the taxes?

Do the concepts of IP address and network interface not belong to the same layer?

How do I implement a file system driver driver in Linux?

Proof of Lemma: Every nonzero integer can be written as a product of primes

Is there a conventional notation or name for the slip angle?

Can somebody explain Brexit in a few child-proof sentences?

How do I repair my stair bannister?

Find last 3 digits of this monster number

What does this horizontal bar at the first measure mean?

If a character with the Alert feat rolls a crit fail on their Perception check, are they surprised?

Greco-Roman egalitarianism

Confusion on Parallelogram

Can the Supreme Court overturn an impeachment?

Have I saved too much for retirement so far?

How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character

Is there a word to describe the feeling of being transfixed out of horror?

Has Darkwing Duck ever met Scrooge McDuck?

How do ground effect vehicles perform turns?

Customize circled numbers

Fly on a jet pack vs fly with a jet pack?

Are all species of CANNA edible?

Diode in opposite direction?

What (else) happened July 1st 1858 in London?

Is camera lens focus an exact point or a range?

How do I extrude a face to a single vertex



Would it be legal for a US State to ban exports of a natural resource?


Is it legal to search for commerce sites listing items at erroneously low prices and exploiting such errors?Must the reason for a permanent ban for a paid online game be provided?What happens if Congress declares war, but POTUS refuses to fight it?Do (any) US State Governors have legal authority to preemptively pardon persons of a state crime?Can one sell allowed product and “give” unallowed product for free?Is it legal for a vending machine (company) to offer additional purchase options after currency has been inserted?When is the effective date for travel ban?Default Governing State for NDAlegal recourse against a company with no contact informationFor products shipped across state lines, who gets the taxes?













3















I am interested in whether a US state constitution could be legally amended to ban exports of specific natural resources (such as coal, lithium or copper) outside it's own state borders.



If such a ban were successful, there would presumably be a fusillade of federal lawsuits from entities that had already invested in the mining of export-restricted resources in the state. What damages if succesful, could the state be liable for? Would the state have a defense against such lawsuits such as force majure? I am particularly interested in contract termination damages if a miner had force majure clauses in their contracts with customers.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

    – George White
    2 hours ago











  • Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

    – A. K.
    1 hour ago















3















I am interested in whether a US state constitution could be legally amended to ban exports of specific natural resources (such as coal, lithium or copper) outside it's own state borders.



If such a ban were successful, there would presumably be a fusillade of federal lawsuits from entities that had already invested in the mining of export-restricted resources in the state. What damages if succesful, could the state be liable for? Would the state have a defense against such lawsuits such as force majure? I am particularly interested in contract termination damages if a miner had force majure clauses in their contracts with customers.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

    – George White
    2 hours ago











  • Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

    – A. K.
    1 hour ago













3












3








3








I am interested in whether a US state constitution could be legally amended to ban exports of specific natural resources (such as coal, lithium or copper) outside it's own state borders.



If such a ban were successful, there would presumably be a fusillade of federal lawsuits from entities that had already invested in the mining of export-restricted resources in the state. What damages if succesful, could the state be liable for? Would the state have a defense against such lawsuits such as force majure? I am particularly interested in contract termination damages if a miner had force majure clauses in their contracts with customers.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I am interested in whether a US state constitution could be legally amended to ban exports of specific natural resources (such as coal, lithium or copper) outside it's own state borders.



If such a ban were successful, there would presumably be a fusillade of federal lawsuits from entities that had already invested in the mining of export-restricted resources in the state. What damages if succesful, could the state be liable for? Would the state have a defense against such lawsuits such as force majure? I am particularly interested in contract termination damages if a miner had force majure clauses in their contracts with customers.







united-states commerce federal-law state-power






share|improve this question









New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









A. K.

1,3021127




1,3021127






New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 3 hours ago









Brian ToppingBrian Topping

1192




1192




New contributor




Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Brian Topping is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

    – George White
    2 hours ago











  • Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

    – A. K.
    1 hour ago

















  • Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

    – George White
    2 hours ago











  • Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

    – A. K.
    1 hour ago
















Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

– George White
2 hours ago





Question does not show much work since the answer is an easy "no" based on the black and white wording in the Constitution.

– George White
2 hours ago













Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

– A. K.
1 hour ago





Your question has a few too many questions but since it is "if succesful" to which the answer is "NO" I think it will be fine.

– A. K.
1 hour ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4














No



A state may not do that.



The US Constitution Art. I section 8 says:




  1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.



...




  1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;



Art I section 10:




  1. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.



The power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign commerce is exclusive to Congress, no state may exercise it. The power to tax imports and exports is only given in vary limited degree to states, and only by specific permission of Congress.



The Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that a state may not favor its own citizens over citizens of other states in taxation or in commercial privileges, although it may restrict state services to state residents, or charge non-residents higher fees, as for tuition at public colleges.



Even with the consent of Congress, or if passed by Congress, such a law might well be precluded by the Equal Protection clause. Congress may prohibit specific items from being moved in interstate commerce, or it may limit, license, or tax them. But all such regulations must be uniform across the United states, and may not apply only to a specific state.



Regulation of interstate commerce can include regulation of purely intra-state transactions, if they are held to "affect" interstate commerce. This power is very wide-ranging.






share|improve this answer
































    1














    I agree with David Siegel's answer but I think its always important in the law to consider what it would take to get what you want. I will say it is possible but not as an export prohibition per se and practically may fail.



    The state could use its 5th amendment powers of eminent domain to take possesion of all of the desired raw materials and relevant mineral rights for just compensation thus making them all property of The State. Expensive and not sure what the incentive is, but as laws are now, permissible if there is some pubic benefit. At this point the relevant natural resources would be property of the state and could therefore control where it goes such as keeping the resources in state.



    Now assuming that neither budgetary restrictions nor a lawsuit were successful at stopping this measure (two big ifs), The federal government could still take the resources from The State in the same way under eminent domain.



    In summary it is possible if:



    1. Your state has large excesses of cash and a desire to be an irrational economic actor AND

    2. the federal government is shutdown for a very very long time preventing operations of the courts and/or solicitor generals office.





    share|improve this answer
























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "617"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );






      Brian Topping is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38391%2fwould-it-be-legal-for-a-us-state-to-ban-exports-of-a-natural-resource%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4














      No



      A state may not do that.



      The US Constitution Art. I section 8 says:




      1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.



      ...




      1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;



      Art I section 10:




      1. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.



      The power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign commerce is exclusive to Congress, no state may exercise it. The power to tax imports and exports is only given in vary limited degree to states, and only by specific permission of Congress.



      The Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that a state may not favor its own citizens over citizens of other states in taxation or in commercial privileges, although it may restrict state services to state residents, or charge non-residents higher fees, as for tuition at public colleges.



      Even with the consent of Congress, or if passed by Congress, such a law might well be precluded by the Equal Protection clause. Congress may prohibit specific items from being moved in interstate commerce, or it may limit, license, or tax them. But all such regulations must be uniform across the United states, and may not apply only to a specific state.



      Regulation of interstate commerce can include regulation of purely intra-state transactions, if they are held to "affect" interstate commerce. This power is very wide-ranging.






      share|improve this answer





























        4














        No



        A state may not do that.



        The US Constitution Art. I section 8 says:




        1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.



        ...




        1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;



        Art I section 10:




        1. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.



        The power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign commerce is exclusive to Congress, no state may exercise it. The power to tax imports and exports is only given in vary limited degree to states, and only by specific permission of Congress.



        The Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that a state may not favor its own citizens over citizens of other states in taxation or in commercial privileges, although it may restrict state services to state residents, or charge non-residents higher fees, as for tuition at public colleges.



        Even with the consent of Congress, or if passed by Congress, such a law might well be precluded by the Equal Protection clause. Congress may prohibit specific items from being moved in interstate commerce, or it may limit, license, or tax them. But all such regulations must be uniform across the United states, and may not apply only to a specific state.



        Regulation of interstate commerce can include regulation of purely intra-state transactions, if they are held to "affect" interstate commerce. This power is very wide-ranging.






        share|improve this answer



























          4












          4








          4







          No



          A state may not do that.



          The US Constitution Art. I section 8 says:




          1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.



          ...




          1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;



          Art I section 10:




          1. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.



          The power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign commerce is exclusive to Congress, no state may exercise it. The power to tax imports and exports is only given in vary limited degree to states, and only by specific permission of Congress.



          The Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that a state may not favor its own citizens over citizens of other states in taxation or in commercial privileges, although it may restrict state services to state residents, or charge non-residents higher fees, as for tuition at public colleges.



          Even with the consent of Congress, or if passed by Congress, such a law might well be precluded by the Equal Protection clause. Congress may prohibit specific items from being moved in interstate commerce, or it may limit, license, or tax them. But all such regulations must be uniform across the United states, and may not apply only to a specific state.



          Regulation of interstate commerce can include regulation of purely intra-state transactions, if they are held to "affect" interstate commerce. This power is very wide-ranging.






          share|improve this answer















          No



          A state may not do that.



          The US Constitution Art. I section 8 says:




          1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.



          ...




          1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;



          Art I section 10:




          1. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.



          The power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign commerce is exclusive to Congress, no state may exercise it. The power to tax imports and exports is only given in vary limited degree to states, and only by specific permission of Congress.



          The Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that a state may not favor its own citizens over citizens of other states in taxation or in commercial privileges, although it may restrict state services to state residents, or charge non-residents higher fees, as for tuition at public colleges.



          Even with the consent of Congress, or if passed by Congress, such a law might well be precluded by the Equal Protection clause. Congress may prohibit specific items from being moved in interstate commerce, or it may limit, license, or tax them. But all such regulations must be uniform across the United states, and may not apply only to a specific state.



          Regulation of interstate commerce can include regulation of purely intra-state transactions, if they are held to "affect" interstate commerce. This power is very wide-ranging.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 2 hours ago

























          answered 3 hours ago









          David SiegelDavid Siegel

          14.3k2855




          14.3k2855





















              1














              I agree with David Siegel's answer but I think its always important in the law to consider what it would take to get what you want. I will say it is possible but not as an export prohibition per se and practically may fail.



              The state could use its 5th amendment powers of eminent domain to take possesion of all of the desired raw materials and relevant mineral rights for just compensation thus making them all property of The State. Expensive and not sure what the incentive is, but as laws are now, permissible if there is some pubic benefit. At this point the relevant natural resources would be property of the state and could therefore control where it goes such as keeping the resources in state.



              Now assuming that neither budgetary restrictions nor a lawsuit were successful at stopping this measure (two big ifs), The federal government could still take the resources from The State in the same way under eminent domain.



              In summary it is possible if:



              1. Your state has large excesses of cash and a desire to be an irrational economic actor AND

              2. the federal government is shutdown for a very very long time preventing operations of the courts and/or solicitor generals office.





              share|improve this answer





























                1














                I agree with David Siegel's answer but I think its always important in the law to consider what it would take to get what you want. I will say it is possible but not as an export prohibition per se and practically may fail.



                The state could use its 5th amendment powers of eminent domain to take possesion of all of the desired raw materials and relevant mineral rights for just compensation thus making them all property of The State. Expensive and not sure what the incentive is, but as laws are now, permissible if there is some pubic benefit. At this point the relevant natural resources would be property of the state and could therefore control where it goes such as keeping the resources in state.



                Now assuming that neither budgetary restrictions nor a lawsuit were successful at stopping this measure (two big ifs), The federal government could still take the resources from The State in the same way under eminent domain.



                In summary it is possible if:



                1. Your state has large excesses of cash and a desire to be an irrational economic actor AND

                2. the federal government is shutdown for a very very long time preventing operations of the courts and/or solicitor generals office.





                share|improve this answer



























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  I agree with David Siegel's answer but I think its always important in the law to consider what it would take to get what you want. I will say it is possible but not as an export prohibition per se and practically may fail.



                  The state could use its 5th amendment powers of eminent domain to take possesion of all of the desired raw materials and relevant mineral rights for just compensation thus making them all property of The State. Expensive and not sure what the incentive is, but as laws are now, permissible if there is some pubic benefit. At this point the relevant natural resources would be property of the state and could therefore control where it goes such as keeping the resources in state.



                  Now assuming that neither budgetary restrictions nor a lawsuit were successful at stopping this measure (two big ifs), The federal government could still take the resources from The State in the same way under eminent domain.



                  In summary it is possible if:



                  1. Your state has large excesses of cash and a desire to be an irrational economic actor AND

                  2. the federal government is shutdown for a very very long time preventing operations of the courts and/or solicitor generals office.





                  share|improve this answer















                  I agree with David Siegel's answer but I think its always important in the law to consider what it would take to get what you want. I will say it is possible but not as an export prohibition per se and practically may fail.



                  The state could use its 5th amendment powers of eminent domain to take possesion of all of the desired raw materials and relevant mineral rights for just compensation thus making them all property of The State. Expensive and not sure what the incentive is, but as laws are now, permissible if there is some pubic benefit. At this point the relevant natural resources would be property of the state and could therefore control where it goes such as keeping the resources in state.



                  Now assuming that neither budgetary restrictions nor a lawsuit were successful at stopping this measure (two big ifs), The federal government could still take the resources from The State in the same way under eminent domain.



                  In summary it is possible if:



                  1. Your state has large excesses of cash and a desire to be an irrational economic actor AND

                  2. the federal government is shutdown for a very very long time preventing operations of the courts and/or solicitor generals office.






                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 1 hour ago

























                  answered 1 hour ago









                  A. K.A. K.

                  1,3021127




                  1,3021127




















                      Brian Topping is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Brian Topping is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Brian Topping is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      Brian Topping is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38391%2fwould-it-be-legal-for-a-us-state-to-ban-exports-of-a-natural-resource%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to create a command for the “strange m” symbol in latex? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?Writing bold small caps with mathpazo packageplus-minus symbol with parenthesis around the minus signGreek character in Beamer document titleHow to create dashed right arrow over symbol?Currency symbol: Turkish LiraDouble prec as a single symbol?Plus Sign Too Big; How to Call adfbullet?Is there a TeX macro for three-legged pi?How do I get my integral-like symbol to align like the integral?How to selectively substitute a letter with another symbol representing the same letterHow do I generate a less than symbol and vertical bar that are the same height?

                      Българска екзархия Съдържание История | Български екзарси | Вижте също | Външни препратки | Литература | Бележки | НавигацияУстав за управлението на българската екзархия. Цариград, 1870Слово на Ловешкия митрополит Иларион при откриването на Българския народен събор в Цариград на 23. II. 1870 г.Българската правда и гръцката кривда. От С. М. (= Софийски Мелетий). Цариград, 1872Предстоятели на Българската екзархияПодмененият ВеликденИнформационна агенция „Фокус“Димитър Ризов. Българите в техните исторически, етнографически и политически граници (Атлас съдържащ 40 карти). Berlin, Königliche Hoflithographie, Hof-Buch- und -Steindruckerei Wilhelm Greve, 1917Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars

                      Чепеларе Съдържание География | История | Население | Спортни и природни забележителности | Културни и исторически обекти | Религии | Обществени институции | Известни личности | Редовни събития | Галерия | Източници | Литература | Външни препратки | Навигация41°43′23.99″ с. ш. 24°41′09.99″ и. д. / 41.723333° с. ш. 24.686111° и. д.*ЧепелареЧепеларски Linux fest 2002Начало на Зимен сезон 2005/06Национални хайдушки празници „Капитан Петко Войвода“Град ЧепелареЧепеларе – народният ски курортbgrod.orgwww.terranatura.hit.bgСправка за населението на гр. Исперих, общ. Исперих, обл. РазградМузей на родопския карстМузей на спорта и скитеЧепеларебългарскибългарскианглийскитукИстория на градаСки писти в ЧепелареВремето в ЧепелареРадио и телевизия в ЧепелареЧепеларе мами с родопски чар и добри пистиЕвтин туризъм и снежни атракции в ЧепелареМестоположениеИнформация и снимки от музея на родопския карст3D панорами от ЧепелареЧепелареррр