[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Bey, "a little federalism" might be one of the bigger understatements I've read all year. Federal legislation into mundane matters that the founders likely never foresaw or intended their republic's ever interfering in has been so pervasive during our lifetimes that it is difficult to imagine life without it. That it is true is precisely the lament of those who are glad to see the Supreme Court finally check Congress' overreaching.

Strict interpretation of the commerce clause is a phrase one hears seldom. That's because until Lopez was decided in 1995, the Supreme Court had been unwilling to recognize since the New Deal that the commerce clause might actually mean anything at all. After issuing a string of decisions torturing the meaning of the commerce clause, the Supreme Court effectively gave Congress carte blanche to regulate anything and everything, without even making any attempt to determine whether the subject matter of the legislation was within the purview of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress under Article I of the Constitution. Finally, the Renquist Court cried "foul" and resurrected the long-dead commerce clause and breathed life into it once again.

***nothing to see here(thanks CL)*** I understand the history of the law more or less. Obviously, not as well as you do, but my understanding is pretty good for a layperson. I also understand the ramifications of the of the Renquist Court's ruling in Morrison.

Your next to last sentence speaks directly to the point of enumerated powers. I find it troubling. I take it to mean that essentially you note that you are worried the Supreme Court might actually honor the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, rather than allow the prevailing politics of the day to determine what is or isn't within Congress' authority. You seem to be giving your tacit approval to the notion of disregarding the limited powers doctrine and placing unchecked trust in the wisdom of Congress. Perhaps Mark Twain's quip is appropriate to remember sometimes. "Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself."

The founders created a government of limited powers. Congress has only the powers specifically enumerated in Article I. The Constitution is quite explicit in that regard. Since the late-1930s, Congress and the Supreme Court have been unwilling to recognize that notion until recently.

My point was that our system of government will be fundamentally altered by a strict interpetation of the commerce clause. I am unsure as to the scope of ramifications of this ruling. For example with a strict interpetation of the constitution is the civil rights act of 1964 actually constitutional, I dont think would be and that bothers me. While I think that Jim Crow laws were obviously unconstitutional, having the federal govenment outlaw discrimination is a good thing.

The editorial writer above forecasts that two or three new justices might be willing to give my life to the once-believed dead commerce clause. That's the whole point. I posted it because although it was written in 2000, today it is just as relevant as it was then.

Cool Hand

uh, I understood that.

I just find it ironic that as the european union moves closer together, we could be moving farther apart. I think that a strict interpetation of the commerce clause would seriously fuck our federal government and would lead to a fracturing of the country along geograpic and cultural lines. I think you would see less monoculture and although some people might think it is a good thing, I am not so sure. Also, although I am a little l libertarian on lots of issues, I dont think that state's rights is the way to go. I mean shit, a strict interpetation of the constitution allows for seccession on the same grounds of states' rights and thus Lincoln fought a war of aggression.