Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federalism, Up in Smoke?
NRO ^ | June 07, 2005 | Jonathan H. Adler

Posted on 06/07/2005 1:41:26 PM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: ExcelJockey

That's the one thing I have against Scalia. He is 100% great when the decision is not against his personal scruples, but when the chips are down on federalism and something he doesn't like, "necessary and proper" trumps federalism every time.


41 posted on 06/07/2005 7:21:53 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (<-- sick of faux-conservatives who want federal government intervention for 'conservative things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Yes. That word jettison is wrong. Thanks for calling my attention to it. As you point out, justifying one's actions in the name of principle is not necessarily the same as actually holding those principles.


42 posted on 06/07/2005 8:19:20 PM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Mourn the death of liberaltarianism!

And remember, kids: Charlie loves you!





[Little irony, sarcasm and morbid humor there.]
43 posted on 06/07/2005 8:51:07 PM PDT by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Justice Thomas' opinion on this case was EXACTLY correct.


44 posted on 06/08/2005 12:05:05 AM PDT by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: keat
This case was hopelessly dreadlocked for years. Regardless of the outcome, I'm glad it was finally settled.

It's about time, mon.

45 posted on 06/08/2005 12:22:42 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport them all; let Fox sort them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
What has been so amazing to me is to see so many alleged conservatives cheering this catastrophe for the concept of limited government.

Remember, this case was brought before the Court by the Bush Administration: Ashcroft vs. Raich.

46 posted on 06/08/2005 4:05:21 AM PDT by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Well, I haven't been under the illusion that George "compassion for illegals, not for cancer patients" Bush is a conservative for quite some time now.


47 posted on 06/08/2005 6:34:09 AM PDT by thoughtomator (The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!

Be Ever Vigilant!

48 posted on 06/08/2005 8:00:58 AM PDT by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
SCOTUS starts rewarding overreaching federal regulation as long as it is sweeping in the way it is justified, interstate commerce-wise. What message does that send?

It tells Congress that its laws need to be as expansive and all-encompassing as possible. The bigger the intrusion, the more likely the law will be upheld.

49 posted on 06/09/2005 11:08:29 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Only Justices O’Connor, Thomas, and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented. Few expected the Court to rule differently

I expected the Court to rule against Raich, but I thought that Rehnquist would write the opinion and reason it so as to keep Lopez and Morrison intact. Unfortunately, the decision turned out to be way worse than I had expected. Lopez and Morrison are essentially dead, so much so that Rehnquist couldn't even join the majority so as to at least limit the damage by writing the opinion himself.

Expectations to contrary notwithstanding, Rehnquist won't be resigning after this term. He has too much damage control to do yet. Unless his death is imminent, he's staying. IMHO.

50 posted on 06/09/2005 11:23:39 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
Can someone explain to me how a substance grown, transported, and consumed entirely within the borders of the State of California is a Federal matter?

Its not. It is a 'national' matter. The rubicon has been crossed. We are no longer a federal nation, we are a national country. The constitution is already void.

51 posted on 06/09/2005 11:30:01 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson