3 ms·
And of course there's also Wickard v. Filburn, which held that feeding cattle in one state grain raised in the same state is somehow interstate commerce, and Ba
by zeveb 7y ago
And of course there's also Wickard v. Filburn, which held that feeding cattle in one state grain raised in the same state is somehow interstate commerce, and Baker v. Carr, Gray v. Sanders & Reynolds v. Sims which combined prevent states from having a republican form of government patterned after the federal model. And there are the drug laws, which are mostly although not entirely unconstitutional. And then there are the many state and local firearms laws which violate the Second Amendment. And there's Maryland v. Craig, which guts the right to confront one's accusers. And then there are all the executive departments with no authorisation in the Constitution (e.g. the Department of Education), which IMHO violate the Ninth Amendment. Sadly, it has been a long, long time since 'this should not be done because it violates the Constitution' has been persuasive.
The Constitution's not perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
- alexmingoia 7y agoAlso almost all immigration restrictions like work and residency visas are unconstitutional, as the constitution only grants the Federal government power to determine rules for naturalization. To quote Justice William Rehnquist: “one of the greatest 'fictions' of our federal system is that the Congress exercises only those powers delegated to it, while the remainder are reserved to the States or to the people. The manner in which this Court has construed the Commerce Clause amply illustrates the extent of this fiction. Although it is clear that the people, through the States, delegated authority to Congress to 'regulate Commerce ... among the several States' (Commerce Clause), one could easily get the sense from this Court's opinions that the federal system exists only at the sufferance of Congress."