Interstate Commerce Clause

[Brother in Arms]

Seems to me that the interstate commerce clause is used as a blanket clause for everything. Anything the government doesn't like is against the interest of interstate commerce. Whats next? I think this law is being streched beyond belief.

Brother in Arms

 

[El Tejon]

Commerce Clause=Big Hammer of Unlimited Government.

It is not a law. It is the provision in the Constitution that serves as a rationale for all federal government action.

A wheat farmer in Ohio knows that a switch in time, saves nine.

 

[BostonGeorge]

A wheat farmer in Ohio knows that a switch in time, saves nine.

Precicely. One misguided decision and five spineless Justices at a time have been all it has taken to ensure a limitless government. Unfortunatly it's getting awful late in the game to overturn Wickard.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Unfortunatly it's getting awful late in the game to overturn Wickard.

It's never too late -- or too early, for that matter. Glad it wasn't too late for Brown v. Bd. of Ed. to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson.

 

[hugh damright]

I think that by electing George W. Bush, and by him putting Roberts and Alito in the SCOTUS, that we are beginning to correct the way the commerce clause has been abused.

 

[WayneConrad]

I think that by electing George W. Bush, and by him putting Roberts and Alito in the SCOTUS, that we are beginning to correct the way the commerce clause has been abused.

That would be wonderful. With both nominees voicing reverence for stari decisis, I didn't get that impression at all. What did I miss?

 

[hugh damright]

My impression is that their respect for stari decisis is overshadowed by their reverence for the Constitution.

 

[cosine]

My impression is that their respect for stari decisis is overshadowed by their reverence for the Constitution.

Hopefully. We'll have to wait and see, though.

 

[BostonGeorge]

It's never too late -- or too early, for that matter. Glad it wasn't too late for Brown v. Bd. of Ed. to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson.

Never too late per se, however, the longer it is law and being cited as such, the harder the road will be.

I think that by electing George W. Bush, and by him putting Roberts and Alito in the SCOTUS, that we are beginning to correct the way the commerce clause has been abused.

I think if George W. believed that he would rethink his decision.

 

[Ed 2001 SS]

Commerce clause + necessary and proper clause was the basis for upholding the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Tory]

Overlooking a case

"Quote:
Unfortunatly it's getting awful late in the game to overturn Wickard.

It's never too late -- or too early, for that matter. Glad it wasn't too late for Brown v. Bd. of Ed. to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson."


Everyone seems to have forgotten the SCOTUS decision in the Lopes case, striking down the "Safe Schools Act" as being an overbroad and inappropriate application of the Commerce Clause. That law was subsequently re-enacted with some band-aid boilerplate relating to interstate commerce and has not been challenged yet.

Still, it was a start!

 

[publius]

Good News, Bad News

That would be wonderful. With both nominees voicing reverence for stari decisis, I didn't get that impression at all. What did I miss?

In the case of Roberts, he once ruled that a toad found only in California could not be the subject of regulation based on the interstate commerce clause.

That sounds good, but is not the whole story....

It was an Endangered Species Act case, and he did go on to say that he might have upheld the regulation based on some other grounds. OK, which other grounds? He never said, as far as I know, but there really are not very many possibilities. General welfare clause? <shudder> Let's hope not.

"Machine Gun" Sammy Alito said that possession of a machine gun did not strike him as any more "commercial" or "economic" in nature than the possession of other types of guns.

OK, that sounds good as well, but again it's not the whole story, and again there is reason for concern. I don't feel like typing those out again, so here.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Everyone seems to have forgotten the SCOTUS decision in the Lopes case, striking down the "Safe Schools Act" as being an overbroad and inappropriate application of the Commerce Clause.

"Everyone" includes the Supreme Court. They have retreated from that position several times since that case. See Raich (California medical MJ case). Unfortunately, Lopes now appears to have been an abberation rather than the start of a trend.