undefined | Better HN

0 pointskbolino13y ago0 comments

Except that the power of Congress to "regulate Commerce ... among the several States" does not mean that Congress has the power to regulate an individual's commercial activity. It means that Congress has the power to forbid a state from interfering in commerce taking place across state lines.

The problem with Raich and Wickard (et al.) is not that they extend federal power, but rather that they invent it of whole cloth.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

gamblor95613y ago· 2 in thread

"among the States," not "of the States" or "by the States." This means that Congress has the power to regulate Commerce occuring "amongst" several states. This includes but is not limited to regulating the States' power to regulate commerce within their own borders.

Raich and Wickard do not invent federal power; they simply extend it to the modern era (or rather, into their future and our present day, since technology took a few decades to catch up).

dreamdu5t13y ago

Using that interpretation the Federal government has no meaningful limits on its power, if "regulate Commerce... among the several States" includes every physical thing in the US.

Let me ask you this: What activity isn't covered in your interpretation of the commerce clause?

ubernostrum13y ago

The exact scope of the Commerce Clause is actually one of the classic questions of US constitutional law. Court interpretations have gone back and forth over the years; currently, things are a bit muddy because members of the Supreme Court have a tendency to expand or restrict the clause to suit their own ideologies (i.e., Scalia believes that a federal ban on marijuana can apply even to marijuana which never crosses a state line, because he doesn't like marijuana; he has a very different and arguably conflicting opinion on gun regulations, though, because he likes guns).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse