181–190 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It uses the phrase “regulate commerce between the states” which effectively has the same meaning.
No. It absolutely does not use that language, and it baffles me as to what would cause you to say that it does. Please endeavor to say only true things. The truth matters.
> to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
VOCs and carcinogens are a health hazard. Asthma, kids development, allergies, and occasional migraine trigger. It’s not random we call it ‘dank’ or ‘skunk’ and if it’s good it should piss off your neighbours. It’s 2026. Dry flower vapes get you higher, with less product, and sparing the lungs. They have a smell more in line with popcorn than a cigarette. They come in everything from one-hitter to portable-volcano. F…
This is the foundational reasoning for making perfume, air fresheners, deodorant, and scented cleaning supplies illegal to possess or use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the federal government, however. There are specific prohibitions on certain categories of state laws, like granting titles of nobility, creating non-gold/silver currencies, etc. The federal government cannot constitutionally regulate sex positions, because anything not explicitly covered in the Constitution is reserved to the states, or the people. In that broad grant, however, the states individually can make or…
>The federal government cannot constitutionally regulate sex positions, because anything not explicitly covered in the Constitution is reserved to the states, or the people. That being said, there's probably not a constitutional way to enforce laws regulating sex positions. Even if you don't agree that such laws are clearly discriminatory in intent (let alone impact), the privacy violations necessary to prove guilt "…
Right, but until someone gets arrested for this, nobody has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law itself. It is one of those unenforceable laws. Even biblical law required witnesses (never just one) before being able to prove adultery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, this decision purports to rest on the “Necessary and Proper” clause, avoiding Wickard (decided on commerce clause grounds)
How does the supreme court revisit precedents if the circuit court doesn't readdress the issue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have identified a root perversion. Roscoe Filburn’s wheat did not leave Ohio or even his farm. He didn’t offer it for sale; the wheat was for his own use. It was deemed to “affect interstate commerce” and thus within the scope of the interstate commerce clause. With that, a provision intended to remove power of states to tax each other’s goods and services and promote a free trade zone instead became a mechanism…
I don't see SCOTUS ever overturning Wickard , sadly. Too many federal programs and regulations would lose their legal basis if that happened.
As noted by other commenters, the concept of federal control of interstate commerce was intended to prevent states from interfering with trade between themselves and other states, and to create some "higher" authority for aspects of commerce that truly transcended state borders and control.
Most of what has happened in terms of programs and regulations fits very comfortably into that understanding. What doesn't, which I don't think is a lot, should probably go away anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's a selection effect there that makes it an unrepresentative sample.
First, Gen Alpha is in their teens, so it's kind of hard to say what is happening there or will happen. Second, there is a growing divide between gen Z males that are skewing conservative in some ways. Their church/religious attendance is up, but overall attendance is still down. Gen Z females that are the most liberal demographic in history. The split is both political/social. (US analysis)
This was debunked, at least in the UK. Not sure about the US but I'll bet it's the same sham (church sponsored) statistics.
I think more of each generation is coming to realise that religion is an outmoded parasite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think much more likely is that it will just be made legal federally sometime in the next decade. Marijuana legalization has majorities across ideologies ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legal... ) and even though the inability to create federal law on something so popular seems like a good case study on how the US system doesn't always do a good job representing it's actual people, it seems…
I think the issue is this isn't seen by politicians as a motivating vote driver. It is, however, a motivation for someone to go out and vote against a politician. That's ultimately what keeps things like MJ illegal. There are just far too many people that will get upset about it if it were made federally legal. My state, Idaho, has one such politician that is constantly bringing up and trying to find ways to keep the…
This is situation where well thought out (and moderately constrained) referendum process can help achieve the majority desire for a policy that would not otherwise be considered important enough to drive the selection of representatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see SCOTUS ever overturning Wickard , sadly. Too many federal programs and regulations would lose their legal basis if that happened.
You’re almost certainly correct. Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would argue this consequentualist line. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch could be persuaded by textualist or originalist arguments and are the most likely overturn votes. Kavanaugh was a key man on standing up and defending the so-called PATRIOT Act during the George W. Bush administration, so no way he knocks out this pillar. ACB talked a strong originalist ga…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It got through via a ballot initiative. It wouldn't have been passed by the legislators in UT without that. That's why the guy in my state, C. Scott Grow, has also been fighting to make ballot initiatives harder. He's terrified that an MJ initiative would make it's way in that way.
Republicans in Utah are also trying to remove the power from ballot initiatives because they're upset the Utahans passed an anti-gerrymandering initiative.
Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)
Our companion case in the Sixth Circuit tees up the issue: https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/issues/detail/ream-v-us-dep... See the opening brief.