The Supreme Court grossly overstepped its bounds in Wickard v. Filburn and as far as I'm concerned the decision is pure garbage. I make no apologies for the blunt nature of that statement as it is one that has been made in the past and should be made again and again until the public at large recognizes its truth.
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and it's time that it was recognized as such. We are now at a point where the Federal government has almost unlimited power to interfere in any aspect of our lives that it so chooses. This has to stop. Just because the Supreme Court says that a statute or regulation passess Constitutional muster doesn't make it so. If Congress passed a particular piece of legislation, and the President signed it into law, that made Catholicism the national religion, required all tax payers to contribute one percent of their gross income to support the church and its activities and made it unlawful to practice other forms of worship without a special permit from the Attorney General, such a statute would be Constitutionally, and thus legally, D.O.A. even if the Supreme Court upheld it on the grounds of a "compelling state interest" or a "substantial impact on interstate commerce."
I wish Montana well and I applaud her efforts in this matter. Whether this law will be put to the test in court and survive is something we'll have to wait and see about. Win or lose, though, Montana is in the right. The fact that the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court have the coercive force to make the States and their people bend to their will in instances such as this doesn't make their actions legally or morally correct.
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and it's time that it was recognized as such. We are now at a point where the Federal government has almost unlimited power to interfere in any aspect of our lives that it so chooses. This has to stop. Just because the Supreme Court says that a statute or regulation passess Constitutional muster doesn't make it so. If Congress passed a particular piece of legislation, and the President signed it into law, that made Catholicism the national religion, required all tax payers to contribute one percent of their gross income to support the church and its activities and made it unlawful to practice other forms of worship without a special permit from the Attorney General, such a statute would be Constitutionally, and thus legally, D.O.A. even if the Supreme Court upheld it on the grounds of a "compelling state interest" or a "substantial impact on interstate commerce."
I wish Montana well and I applaud her efforts in this matter. Whether this law will be put to the test in court and survive is something we'll have to wait and see about. Win or lose, though, Montana is in the right. The fact that the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court have the coercive force to make the States and their people bend to their will in instances such as this doesn't make their actions legally or morally correct.
Last edited:
