7 ms·
To oversimplify, that's why prohibition 1.0 had to be done via constitutional amendment; but since then, we had the Wickard v. Filburn ruling, which made virtua
by eurleif 4y ago
To oversimplify, that's why prohibition 1.0 had to be done via constitutional amendment; but since then, we had the Wickard v. Filburn ruling, which made virtually everything regulatable under the Commerce Clause with its extremely broad interpretation of the phrase "interstate commerce".
In Wickard v. Filburn, a farmer grew grain on his farm. He did not sell this grain, whether across state lines or otherwise; he merely fed it to his own livestock on the same farm. SCOTUS ruled that this could be regulated via the Commerce Clause because, if he grew his own grain, he could be expected to buy less grain on the open market, which could indirectly affect interstate commerce. By that logic, virtually anything can affect interstate commerce, and be regulated as such.
- newZWhoDis 4y agoSuch an absurd ruling, but none of the current supremes have the stones to overturn it
- darkmarmot 4y agoClarence Thomas actually dissented on this and said it was crazy.
- kevviiinn 4y agoHe's right. Saying that the federal government can regulate how much a farmer can grow to feed their own animals because it would somehow impact interstate commerce is entirely unhinged It's the most incredible form of mental gymnastics in order to grab power
- mananaysiempre 4y agoLooking from the outside, US constitutional law has always seemed like this absurd tangle of kabbalistic reinterpretations, but it seems important to mention that AFAIK the federal ban on child labour (whether or not its products cross state lines) rests on similarly twisty reasoning. (Things like environmental protections as well, probably, but this looks to have been the first example.) “Let’s allow the federal government to regulate whatever” is a value-neutral weapon.
- kevviiinn 4y agoI don't think its value neutral when drug laws allowed slavery to essentially continue and has destroyed countless communities and families
- mananaysiempre 4y ago- Activities staying inside state lines should be subject to federal regulation so that children don’t die due to breathing in coal dust at work, or so that people don’t get poisoned by lead in the air and water; - Activities staying inside state lines should not be subject to federal regulation so that people don’t get sent to prison in droves for what is essentially a medical problem. Seems to me like federal regulation is fairly value-neutral, as in usable in equal measure for both good and evil. The tricky part is deciding which is which, of course.
- calvinmorrison 4y agowell that's the issue with common law versus civil law. Literally reinterpretations, past references etc. It's not just what the men who penned it meant, it's how the court interpreted.
- ren_engineer 4y agoyou can thank FDR for stacking the supreme court and outright threatening to increase the number of justices to intimidate other justices for that ruling. Supreme Court went with every overreach of power that FDR wanted for the federal government, including affirming the right to intern Japanese-Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bil...
- vkou 4y agoIf we're going to blame someone, why not blame the court for expanding its own power, back in 1803? SCOTUS' current role is defined nowhere in constitution (Which says next to nothing about the roles of courts), or by an act of legislature. It was, quite literally, magicked out of thin air by SCOTUS.
- pash 4y agoThe role of the courts in deciding the constitutionality of legislation was very much in the zeitgeist of the American experiment. Federalist, No. 78: > It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. [0] It is absurd to say that the Supreme Court “magicked out of thin air” the notion of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. That was simply the Court's first assertion of the power the constitution gave it to wield, the wielding of which is the primary purpose of the judiciary as a separate but equal branch of American government. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78#Judicial_review https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78#Judicial_r...
- voldacar 4y agoWhere in the constitution is that power described or given?
- anigbrowl 4y agoSure, but other Consitutional provisions stand on the same level as the Commerce clause. You would not get anywhere arguing that the 2nd amendment should be narrowed because gun violence impacts interstate commerce, for example. I have always thought Wickard v Fillburn was wrong decided, though.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nradov 4y agoI know it's a long shot, but I have some hope that the current Supreme Court will overturn Wickard v. Filburn and eviscerate the authority of the Federal government. This is not terribly likely but they have shown some willingness to take a fresh look at established precedents.