[subterfuge]

Yeah, I have a way with words. If Scalia twists things to his agenda, as you say, well, we all might as well move to China, because it is already over in this country.

Haven’t read Raich or Wickard.

[Huck]

Scalia is shaky whenever social issues are involved. You can always tell when that's the case--whenever Thomas and Scalia are on opposite sides of a decision.

Limited government has been over for a long, long time. I wouldn't take it so hard. It's outside your control. China? Yuck.

[Huck]

I wrote an essay about it here

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2363918/posts?page=179

[Ken H]

If Scalia twists things to his agenda, as you say, well, we all might as well move to China, because it is already over in this country.

Haven't read Raich or Wickard.

______________________________________

From Scalia's decision in Raich:

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

______________________________________

1. Do you agree or disagree with Scalia?

2. Do you think he is being true to the original understanding of the Commerce Clause?

3. If your answer to #2 is "No", why do you think he wrote what he did?