"What is this power? It is the power to regulate, that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution." --Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)You're arguing that the "Federal Judiciary is too powerful" while simultaneously demanding that it usurp powers explicitly delegated to Congress. You're also implicitly calling for the Court to operate without the limitations on its appellate jurisdiction set out in the Constitution.
Incorrect. I'm demonstrating that the Court is not a reliable instrument for restraining the expansion of federal power; that in fact it is a consistent agent of federal expansion of power.
You are now begging the question of what power the commerce clause conferred on Congress. It apparantly doesn't mean what it meant. It means whatever you or the Court or Congress wants it to mean, and apparantly you're ok with that.
The commerce clause was understood to mean something specific and limited, not something universal and all-encompassing. The fact that you embrace such an absurd construction is telling.
>You’re arguing that
>You’re also implicitly calling for
Stop putting words into Huck’s mouth. We don’t need you to tell us what Huck just clearly said, in your own biased words, Mr. Spin Doctor.
The Courts’ job is to strike down unconstitutional laws.
The Courts have failed in their position of responsibility to exercise this power, in favor of judicial activism including legislating from the bench.
Didn’t you read Marbury v Madison in law school? Or was that before your time, Grandpa?