I'm reading Thomas Woods book, Nullification. I'll periodically recount what I'm learning here.
Regarding the Commerce Clause, Thomas describes the genesis of the Commerce Clause and recounts the tortured way in which the courts have interpreted it to the benefit of the Federal Government over the years. This passage shows the absurdity to which they have argued:
...the anomolous 1995 case of U.S. v. Lopez...the Gun Free School Zones Act...
The Federal governement argued that the potential presence of guns in schools would make students nervous, that nervous students would learn less and thus acquire an inferior education, that people with inferior educations would contribute less to the U.S. economy, that contributing less to the U.S. economy would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce...
The Supreme Court overturned this absurdity, but with the exception of Clarence Thomas, did not challenge the idea that a "substantial effect" argument.
I'll comment later on why this should never have come before a Federal court and especially not before the Supremes.
Interesting. I've long thought that much of what gets passed off under the "interstate commerce" argument sounded like crap, but I didn't have much background on specific instances.
ReplyDeleteGlad to find your blog. I'm a big fan of Scott Walker and the Republicans up in WI. I'll be interested to hear from an information source on the frontlines of what's going on.