271–280 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Additionally, one can argue that the state of the world has changed enough that assumptions made by the USC at the time of precedence require reversal.
The court is stacked with so called originalists - history stopped in the eighteenth century.
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.)
Big beer head Kavanaugh and Kegseth are probably jumping for joy.
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.)
Another case based on interstate commerce: the US ban on racial segregation. The example given, iirc, was restaurant competition across state lines.
Specifically the federal ban on private segregation. The states would still be able to ban it.
Moreover, is that the sort of thing you even want as an ordinary statute dangling precariously off of the commerce clause instead of making it a constitutional amendment to begin with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I call BS. Wickard is about, effectively, "police power" based on a broad interpretation of the scope of federal/interstate commerce. 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 con…
If you can use the commerce clause to prevent a guy growing wheat on his own property and feeding that crop in its entirety to his animals, there literally isn't an activity the federal government can't regulate.
Bought and rigged up a 'hand sanitizer plant' about five months into COVID. Populated the thing with thermocouples, load cells and automation with nodered on raspberry pi and a bunch of esp32s flashed with tasmota doing sensing and control. Everything talked over mqtt. Great little architecture and having it highly automated allowed me to focus on the parts that were less easily controlled for. Dashboard: https://img…
It'll be interesting to see how many people get methanol poisoning from trying their hand at it without doing the research properly. That being said, so long as it's for private or non-profit use, I don't really see the harm here.
> [Judge Edith Jones] also said that under the government’s logic, Congress could criminalize virtually any in-home activity Well, yeah. This is essentially the holding in Wickard v. Filburn, which seems to be in tension with this decision (overturning that would be great but it’s not the role of the circuit courts of appeal to do preemptively)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This gets at something I think a lot of people don't really understand. They see polls that show strong support for policy X, and then complain that politicians don't enact it. What they fail to consider is that while a strong majority may be in favor of the policy, it's not the top (or top 3) priority, and they will support candidates that have the opposite position on X, if they support their top priority. This is…
Yeah, that's essentially what happened here in Oregon. And the 2nd chapter of it is after the ballot measure passed, the state liquor commission drug its heels for a couple years, because most of their executives are far more conservative than the median voter here (a side effect of a lot of them being Salem locals vs Portland, but anyhow). Eventually the state legislature got fed up with the obstructionism and passe…
Because their industry is in bed with government so their priority #1 is coordinating with the people of that industry. The actual "value producing" activity of buying, distributing, selling liquor and managing those relationships is a sideshow.
You see this in every deeply regulated industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You should argue with him he's acting like Satan. The mormons (I used to be one) say that Satan wanted to force everyone to be good, Jesus wanted each person to have free will and choose.
here's mine if you have a use for it. https://archiveofourown.org/works/65636176?view_full_work=tr...