Wayfair v. South Dakota - What is the Practical Issue?

I just finished reading the transcripts for the Oral Arguments in the Wayfair v. South Dakota (U.S. Supreme Court case). Despite all of the arguments, discussion and debate, one practical, simple matter came into focus - this whole thing is about whether a business (small or large) will have to complete sales tax compliance in 45 states (plus D.C.) or simply the one state it has a physical presence in. Obviously, the facts differ by company as some have a physical presence in several states or all states. But I am talking about those companies who have a physical presence in 1 or a handful of states. If South Dakota wins this case, that company's sales tax compliance burden goes from 1 state to 45 states (plus D.C.). And since most businesses (yes, even brick and mortar businesses) have a website, the sales tax compliance burden will increase on ALL businesses. Does that meet constitutional muster? Does that NOT increase burdens on interstate commerce?

As some of the Justices said - this is not a physical presence problem, this is the state's inability to collect use tax problem. I urge the Court to not transfer the state's problem, and burden Internet commerce. If states can't collect the tax, maybe they should impose a different tax they can collect.

P.S. - I have been reading lots of articles, posts about the case and the Oral Arguments. I have also read all of the briefs. If you would like more resources regarding this issue, check out the LEVERAGE SALT Linkedin group for several resources.