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

To: YOUGOTIT

The Court ruled based on Federal Law. Federal Law trumps state laws which conflict, per the Constitution's supremacy clause.


255 posted on 06/06/2005 9:10:21 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Republican Wildcat

This has nothing to do with the Supremacy Clause. The question is whether the federal government has the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to regulare intrastate commerce. Despite the Constitution limiting the federal government to regulating commerce between the several state, the Court today, once again, rules that it includes commerce wholly within a state.


264 posted on 06/06/2005 9:12:19 AM PDT by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies ]

To: Republican Wildcat

No, the Court based its opinion on a atrocious pro-New Deal case which expanded the interstate commerce clause to include just about anything.


265 posted on 06/06/2005 9:12:22 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies ]

To: Republican Wildcat

That's pro New Deal court ruling.


266 posted on 06/06/2005 9:12:53 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies ]

To: Republican Wildcat

The Constitution says that the States and the People have all power not granted to the federal government. A law that feds pass that is in conflict with the powers in the Constitution should be declared unconstitutional.


518 posted on 06/06/2005 12:49:05 PM PDT by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies ]

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