Replies

What is the logic behind applying the interstate commerce clause? Seems like a majority of federal overreaching comes from misapplying this.

The editorial board of The New York Times:
We take very seriously the court's concern about protecting the Commerce Clause, the vital constitutional principle that has allowed the federal government to thwart evils like child labor and segregation.
The dissenters in the 6-to-3 decision, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, opened the door for conservatives who want to sharply reduce Congress's use of its power to regulate and protect interstate commerce. These conservatives want to turn the clock back to before the New Deal, when workers were exploited, factories polluted at will and the elderly faced insecure retirements.

The editorial board of The Wasington Post:
The true importance of Raich has nothing to do with drugs; A Supreme Court decision disallowing federal authority in this area would have been a disaster in areas ranging from civil rights enforcement to environmental protection.
The Constitution's commerce clause, which provided the foundation for the court's ruling in this case, is the foundation of the modern regulatory state, underpinning since the New Deal huge swaths of federal law: worker protections, just about all federal environmental law, laws prohibiting racial discrimination in private-sector employment.

The editorial board of The New Republic:
This week, in the most important federalism decision of the year, the Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to ban the local cultivation and use of medical marijuana. The Supreme Court's deference to Congress's broad power to regulate the economy is an occasion to celebrate.
Had the Court ruled otherwise, as a group of libertarian judicial activists urged, it would have encouraged a radical assault on Congress's power to regulate a host of issues, including crime and workplace safety. But the news was not all good: An unusual coalition of three justices--Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, and Clarence Thomas--dissented from the ruling, suggesting that anti-regulatory forces on the Court remain strong.
.

"Seems like a majority of federal overreaching comes from misapplying this."

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

You are correct. There's nothing wrong with the Commerce Clause -- it's working exactly how it was intended. What's wrong is a Congress that wants to use it to regulate everything from the minimum wage to spousal abuse.

Fortunately, we the people have control over that -- every two years we elect the people who write these laws. We can simply elect those who will write the laws the way we want them. (By "we" I mean "we the majority", whoever that is. It may not be "us" if you get my drift).

Those who want and expect five activist justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to do their work for them are acting like helpless juveniles. Get out the vote and throw out the lawmakers that are writing this overreaching legislation. Now, that may be a little more work than sitting at a keyboard typing "But that's unconstitutional" every time a new law is passed, but that is the way to solve the problem.

What is the logic behind applying the interstate commerce clause? Seems like a majority of federal overreaching comes from misapplying this.

That IS the "logic." The Constitution is a set of rules that strictly defines what the government is and is not allowed to do. The overly broad interpretation of the ICC allows the federal government to intervene in areas of life where the Consitution doesn't allow the federal government to do so. It's sort of like "a living Constitution," where the Constitution means what ever the person interpreting it wants it to mean: And they've got the deadly force to back up that meaning.

Mark