« Activity, Inactivity, and Constitutional Limits | Main | Hawaii Abandons Mandatory Legislative Prayer »

02/02/2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jimbino

"...one that forbid me from...," when translated into English, will read "...one that forbade me to...."

Perry Dane

Corrected. Thanks.

Jimbino

"forbade ... from" is not proper English. It's either "prohibited ... from" or "forbade ... to."

Perry Dane

OK.

Polly Ester

I see why you find it odd from a policy perspective, given the many other laws in place regarding virtually every transaction.

But, even if you do not agree, can you not even see the concern about having no stopping point to federal Commerce power? The reason the broccoli example has caught on is simple: every Commerce Clause precedent, even in upholding broader power, has repeated the mantra that there is no general federal police power. If that is true, then a limit exists, and it is presumably a justiciable limit. The activity/inactivity line is at least a manageable one. Once it is crossed, what is the line that can NOT be crossed?

It seems to me that many of the mandate's defenders are flirting with, or are openly advocating, the elimination of a justiciable limit on Commerce power. If that's the case, it ought to be said openly and honestly, rather than reciting the "some limit out there" mantra while we plug merrily along.

Along similar lines, I've often heard it said that the anti-mandate forces simply do not accept Wickard and Raich. That may be so. But I haven't seen as much acknowledgement that most pro-mandate forces also opposed Lopez and Morrison, and would like to see those cases overruled.

To me, it's not a matter of "conscience," it's a matter of having ANY limits left on the federal power. I don't see that as radical; I see the blunt elimination of the last vestiges of limits as the radical view.

The comments to this entry are closed.