Still remember studying the line of cases starting with Wickard back in law school all those decades ago. The conclusion that I (and all the other law students I knew) came to, was that no matter what your political leanings Wickard stood for the proposition that the federal government could legally regulate (and thus control) everything and anything if they so choose.Originally Posted by bae
True enough, and even moreso in the case from the 90's where the supremes agreed that the commerce clause could be used to regulate people growing marijuana for personal medical use. At least in the Heart of Atlanta case, though, there was actual commerce involved and 3/4 of their customers were from out of state so it could even arguably be considered to be interstate commerce.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original intent of the Commerce Clause to allow the Feds to moderate any dispute between the States? If so, I wonder how it ended up allowing them to regulate all commerce?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
That's the problem with words, they are very rarely exact. If they were we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to interpret them in the first place. Just as one can argue the importance of 'a well regulated militia...' In terms of understanding the fourth amendment, One can surely argue whether commerce among the states meant specifically commerce between the states or commerce that goes across state lines.
I thought the original intent was to prevent States from imposing tariffs on goods crossing their borders.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote