Suffice to say that ALL branches of the federal government tend toward a rather expansive interpretation of powers enumerated under the commerce clause, further inflated by "necessary and proper" in Article 1. If the gummint sticks its nose under the tent and declares that something is interstate commerce, the judiciary tends to agree.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Con Law 101: Commerce Clause and State level AWBs
- Thread starter JimDandy
- Start date
They do seem to have finally reached a limit though, and now I've forgotten the case...the judiciary tends to agree.
Me too - but if memory serves Raich v. Gonzalez followed it and basically slammed the door shut on it.
Funny thing is that aside from it being the springboard from whence innumerable pieces of legislation have emitted, the definition of "interstate commerce" would/should be of no contention or argument. It's just that the stakes are so high and now we've litigated ourselves into what is essentially the old "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument.
Funny thing is that aside from it being the springboard from whence innumerable pieces of legislation have emitted, the definition of "interstate commerce" would/should be of no contention or argument. It's just that the stakes are so high and now we've litigated ourselves into what is essentially the old "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument.