4 ms·
The Civil War settled that the feds could rule over the explicitly authorized powers of the federal government. In the 30s the feds reneged and decided blatantl
by ty6853 2y ago
The Civil War settled that the feds could rule over the explicitly authorized powers of the federal government. In the 30s the feds reneged and decided blatantly unconstitutional stuff like the (later passed) Civil rights act could hold if they just call everything interstate commerce.
When the US falls apart this will be a likely central focus .
- andrekandre 2y agohow was the civil rights act not constitutional?
- ty6853 2y agoCRA under the 1875 version was found unconstitutional per the Civil Rights Cases of the Supreme court [0]. In the 1930s the executive threatened to pack the supreme court and many analogous private/intrastate commerce regulations were allowed federally by this bastardization of 'interstate commerce' by the court. Then they repassed the CRA with yet again stuff found unconstitutional, using their new version of 'interstate commerce' (everything). The CRA objectively has been found unconstitutional by the Supreme court, and I believe it may be again under the latest generation of the court. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases
- andrekandre 2y agothank you for the reply so, probably restating what you said, if someone wanted to pass something like that, a constitutional amendment is the better way since relying on interstate commerce clause is shaky ground... is that right interpretation?
- int_19h 2y agoIndeed. It should be noted that the Commerce Clause underpins most federal powers at this point. This is one of the big reasons why it's such a sacred cow - its ridiculousness is rather obvious, but all players have important things that depend on it that they don't want to risk losing.