> The current interpretation of the commerce clause is not particularly controversial in contemporary American politics (both dominant political parties are "bi

> The current interpretation of the commerce clause is not particularly controversial in contemporary American politics (both dominant political parties are "big Federal government" parties; they just disagree on how to apply the USG's heft.) It's not controversial to the layer of government to which derives power from it, certainly. I think politicians in states have issues with it when it's convenient. >I think the 9th Amendment provides perfectly sufficient cover for a right to abortion, and that it would be reasonable to interpret the nonenumeration clause in a similar manner to the commerce clause (i.e., permitting federal law where required to protect rights that individual states might wish to infringe). But that's a parallel justification. I think it will until states start banning abortion, which is their right (assuming Roe is overturned). I don't think the federal government will have power to override the decision of the states. It would be nice to see a strong interpretation for the 9th amendment come into action though. It might finally end moral crusades like the drug war.