To: AxelPaulsenJr
The WOD has not been challenged in the USSC on violation of Commerce Clause grounds. Since the initial acceptance of FDR's "New Deal Commerce Clause" by the USSC (under threat of the Court Packing Bill), it has only been in recent years that the court has found any limit on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause - the Safe Schools Act, and the Violence Against Women Act. Prior to that a liberal majority on the court has deferred to Congress the authority to decide what does, and doesn't constitute "interstate commerce".
"The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a substantial effects test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress powers and with this Courts early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
-Justice Clarence Thomas
959 posted on
04/29/2004 7:31:29 AM PDT by
tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
To: tacticalogic
"First. It is unnecessary to repeat what has frequently been said by this court with respect to the complete and paramount character of the power confided to Congress to regulate commerce among the several states. It is of the essence of this power that, where it exists, it dominates.
Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'
"It is for Congress to supply the needed correction where the relation between intrastate and interstate rates presents the evil to be corrected, and this it may do completely, by reason of its control over the interstate carrier in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that it is necessary or appropriate to exercise the control for the effective government of that commerce."
-- Mr. Justice Hughes, the Shreveport Rate Case, 20 years before FDR's "New Deal Commerce Clause".
To: tacticalogic
The WOD has not been challenged in the USSC on violation of Commerce Clause grounds.....If you oppose the wod on federal grounds, what is your opinion of states' rights to make and enact laws regulating illegal drugs?
978 posted on
04/29/2004 9:15:58 AM PDT by
AxelPaulsenJr
(Excellence In Posting Since 1999)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson