undefined | Better HN

0 pointssobellian4y ago0 comments

The US is also (obviously) a political union, but the Feds cannot legislate on every issue, some issues are left to the states. One exception is on matters where interstate commerce is affected, where the Feds have broad power. That's the commerce clause exception GP was referring to.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

amalcon4y ago· 2 in thread

If you want further detail, look up Wickard v. Filburn. An activity taking place within one individual's property in a single state can be regulated under the interstate commerce clause, so long as a case is made that it affects interstate commerce. Sounds wild, and it is, but the dependency graph is such that we can't change that now without upsetting the whole cart.

abecedarius4y ago

Even wilder: the other day I ran across https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich which apparently held that growing marijuana, for personal use under state law, is also interstate commerce. Is there anything at all that isn't interstate commerce?

amalcon4y ago

I mean, that's basically Wickard v. Filburn 60 years later and with a different plant. It actually seems downright reasonable if you accept Wickard as settled law, which it is.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse