3 ms·

> The federal government has the authority to regulate the sale (commerce) of switchblade knives between states, the federal government does not have the author

by anamax 14y ago

> The federal government has the authority to regulate the sale (commerce) of switchblade knives between states, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate the sale of a switchblade within a state. Let's look at the case of guns. Do you really think that Montana could say "you can sell Montana-made machineguns in Montan without satisfying federal law"? (The feds don't much care about switchblades. They care about guns.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn . In that case, the feds got to regulate even though the wheat in question wasn't sold and never left the farm.

dfc 14y ago
Well the feds did care about switchblades, that is why they passed a law banning the interstate sale of switchblades, "the Switchblade Knife Act, (Pub.L. 85-623, 72 Stat. 562, enacted on August 12, 1958, and codified in 15 U.S.C. §§ 1241–1245), prohibits the manufacture, importation, distribution, transportation, and sale of switchblade knives in commercial transactions substantially affecting interstate commerce[56] between any state."[1] Evidence for a continued interest in switchblades can be found in the recent exemption carved out for assisted opening knives in 5 USC § 1244.[2] (I think the exemptions in 1244 were passed within the last 5 years as part of a Homeland Security appropriations bill, but I'm fuzzy on the exact date.) Wickard was 70 years ago, interstate commerce doctrine has evolved a lot in the intervening years. In fact I'm a little surprised that you used it as an example. It has been a while since ConLaw I, but I think Wickard is often used as an example of the height of the broad interpretation of the commerce clause. Are you arguing that there is no limit on the power of the the commerce clause? Or that Wickard is the controlling case? Lopez is one of many cases since Wickard where the Supremes walked back such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#Federal_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#Federal_law [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1244 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1244
- marshray 14y ago
  That was 1958, back when prohibition was still in the memory of many congressmen. When prohibition was passed, the Civil War was still in memory and Congress felt it needed a constitutional amendment to ban ethyl alcohol. Today, if Congress wants to ban a thing they simply pass a law that puts you in jail for its sale or possession. Simple as that.
  - dfc 14y ago
    "Today...they simply pass a law that puts you in jail for its sale" Today? They have always done that. Which is why the USC reads as follows: "Whoever knowingly introduces, or manufactures for introduction, into interstate commerce, or transports or distributes in interstate commerce, any switchblade knife, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
- anamax 14y ago
  > Wickard was 70 years ago, interstate commerce doctrine has evolved a lot in the intervening years. The Supremes haven't overturned Wickard. Yes, they did decide that the first version of the Gun Free School Zones Act didn't have a commerce nexus, but they seem quite content with the current version, which affects only those guns that have gone interstate. However, the relevant question is whether the Supremes have ever decided that something sold can be exempt from the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. Take machine guns. A Montana statute that allows unrestricted sale of machine guns made in Montana clearly affects "commerce" (in Montana at the very least) of guns not made in Montana, aka "interstate guns". Do you really think that the Supremes would reject that argument? On what basis? And, if they accept that argument wrt guns, why wouldn't they accept it wrt cantalope?
ThaddeusQuay2 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn Why am I allowed to grow my own flowers? If I want to give some to my girlfriend, and I can simply pick them out of my garden, shouldn't the federal government be trying to stop me, so that millions of guys across America don't get the same idea? Isn't there a concern in D.C. that my actions could lead to a collapse of the entire floral industry?

by anamax 14y ago

dfc 14y ago

Well the feds did care about switchblades, that is why they passed a law banning the interstate sale of switchblades, "the Switchblade Knife Act, (Pub.L. 85-623, 72 Stat. 562, enacted on August 12, 1958, and codified in 15 U.S.C. §§ 1241–1245), prohibits the manufacture, importation, distribution, transportation, and sale of switchblade knives in commercial transactions substantially affecting interstate commerce[56] between any state."[1] Evidence for a continued interest in switchblades can be found in the recent exemption carved out for assisted opening knives in 5 USC § 1244.[2] (I think the exemptions in 1244 were passed within the last 5 years as part of a Homeland Security appropriations bill, but I'm fuzzy on the exact date.) Wickard was 70 years ago, interstate commerce doctrine has evolved a lot in the intervening years. In fact I'm a little surprised that you used it as an example. It has been a while since ConLaw I, but I think Wickard is often used as an example of the height of the broad interpretation of the commerce clause. Are you arguing that there is no limit on the power of the the commerce clause? Or that Wickard is the controlling case? Lopez is one of many cases since Wickard where the Supremes walked back such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#Federal_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#Federal_law [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1244 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1244

marshray 14y ago
That was 1958, back when prohibition was still in the memory of many congressmen. When prohibition was passed, the Civil War was still in memory and Congress felt it needed a constitutional amendment to ban ethyl alcohol. Today, if Congress wants to ban a thing they simply pass a law that puts you in jail for its sale or possession. Simple as that.
- dfc 14y ago
  "Today...they simply pass a law that puts you in jail for its sale" Today? They have always done that. Which is why the USC reads as follows: "Whoever knowingly introduces, or manufactures for introduction, into interstate commerce, or transports or distributes in interstate commerce, any switchblade knife, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
anamax 14y ago
> Wickard was 70 years ago, interstate commerce doctrine has evolved a lot in the intervening years. The Supremes haven't overturned Wickard. Yes, they did decide that the first version of the Gun Free School Zones Act didn't have a commerce nexus, but they seem quite content with the current version, which affects only those guns that have gone interstate. However, the relevant question is whether the Supremes have ever decided that something sold can be exempt from the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. Take machine guns. A Montana statute that allows unrestricted sale of machine guns made in Montana clearly affects "commerce" (in Montana at the very least) of guns not made in Montana, aka "interstate guns". Do you really think that the Supremes would reject that argument? On what basis? And, if they accept that argument wrt guns, why wouldn't they accept it wrt cantalope?

ThaddeusQuay2 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn Why am I allowed to grow my own flowers? If I want to give some to my girlfriend, and I can simply pick them out of my garden, shouldn't the federal government be trying to stop me, so that millions of guys across America don't get the same idea? Isn't there a concern in D.C. that my actions could lead to a collapse of the entire floral industry?