Driving age to 18, well.... I don't know. It might be a good idea, it might not. Most accidents are from 16-21, but that might be because they are just new drivers. Adding the age may help, it may not. If it helps, then I'd agree with going to 18.
Nationalizing ID is scary. Will only punish the law abiding and not the illegals or other criminals.
Cigarettes are legal. Food service places should be able to allow or ban them at their whim.
The 1st amendment and 2nd amendment are non-negotiable to me.
I guess that's where we part ways: 'cuz as far as I'm concerned, NOTHING in the Constitution is negotiable--the 9th & 10th Amendments are being blatantly ignored, but IMO they carry just as much weight as the 1st & 2nd do.
"Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of 8 superfluous simply cannot be correct. Yet this Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence has endorsed just such an interpretation: the power we have accorded Congress has swallowed Art. I, 8."
"Indeed, if a substantial effects test can be appended to the Commerce Clause, why not to every other power of the Federal Government. There is no reason for singling out the Commerce Clause for special treatment."
"Accordingly, Congress could regulate all matters that substantially affect the Army and Navy, bankruptcies, tax collection, expenditures, and so on. In that case, the clauses of 8 all mutually overlap, something we can assume the Founding Fathers never intended."
Do you agree with Justice Thomas' opinion on the substantial effects doctrine?