3 ms·
What a poorly written story: phrasing this as “Trump versus California” is jingoism that risks obscuring a significant legal battle: states’ rights versus feder
by mikece 7y ago
What a poorly written story: phrasing this as “Trump versus California” is jingoism that risks obscuring a significant legal battle: states’ rights versus federal over-reach. Unless it can be argued that this is an interstate commerce case, this has to devolve to the rights of the States, under the 10th amendment, to make their own laws. Too often opponents of States’ rights throw out the canard that proponents of strong States rights want to being back slavery; maybe we just want clean air, the ability to legalize marijuana, pass own own gun laws, etc. The several states were supposed to be laboratories of democracy: if a state wants to ban internal combustion vehicles they should be allowed to do so.
- crooked-v 7y agoThe Supreme Court has already decided that "interstate commerce" covers things that happen entirely within a single state. See Gonzales v. Raich.
- mikece 7y agoThe decision in “Gonzales v. Raich” was narrowly focused on the question of growing cannabis for in-state consumption (for medicinal purposes). Even Scalia broke from being a pure textualist to side with the government, specifically stating that the merits of that case in no way overturn U.S. vs Lopez and U.S. vs Morrison in which it was held that Congress exceeded its authority under the enumerated powers.