Yes, Amazon does. But if it applies to Amazon then it will apply to all the other smaller internet retailers as well. The historical precedent was that it creates an undue burden on said retailers who have to collect such a tax. It's not an excuse, it's a Supreme Court ruling.
So your solution to the problem of there being hundreds of thousands of potential tax rates for every single item is to require everyone selling anything online to pay Thomson Reuters for a subscription to their database?
Or one of their competitors, yes. Or figure it out themselves. Thousands of retailers from JC Penny to Sears to B&N, etc etc, figure it out. Also, you'll note that all online business already do this for the state in which they're located (with the exception of states that don't charge sales tax, but those are relatively few), so businesses can clearly do it. 50 states instead of one is a minor matter of scale, and is no more complex than figuring this out for one state. Which they already must.
Also, if Reuters has excessive profits, someone will probably make a competitor. That said, it's basically a solved problem, except when companies want to hand wring their way out of paying taxes.
BTW, don't be ridiculous about "hundreds of thousands". Unless you mean thousands. Even TR in their sales literature only mentions 13k tax authorities [1]
