3 ms·
Federal law is allowed to exist for a fairly short list of things in the Constitution, with regulating interstate commerce being the justification for most fede
by koenigdavidmj 11y ago
Federal law is allowed to exist for a fairly short list of things in the Constitution, with regulating interstate commerce being the justification for most federal laws. It's not just a place to put anything we deem really important.
Even murder is usually a state crime unless it happens in DC or somehow affects interstate commerce.
- sk5t 11y agoThat's taking a pretty kind view of the Fed's adherence to the Constitutional limits on its power. If it were important enough to the Federal government, Congress could use the club of taxation and federal grants to force the states to toe the line. See for example the peculiar uniformity in laws related to the drinking age, drivers' licenses, etc.; see also the questionable legality of the Affordable Care Act.
- koenigdavidmj 11y agoThere is usually only a token nod to interstate commerce, but it still exists. As one example, there was a federal law known as the Gun Free School Zones Act that banned possessing a firearm within 1500 feet of a school (unless it was on private property, encased and locked, the possessor had a concealed pistol license, or a couple of other exceptions). In the case US v. Lopez, it got shot down as unconstitutional. It immediately got re-passed with the caveat that it affected any firearm that "has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce", which of course is almost all of them.
- sk5t 11y agoI don't think it's unfair to say that the farcical invocation of interstate commerce in the repassage of the GFSA bolsters my point rather than refutes it... and the courts seem largely willing to go along with even the thinnest of rationales for Congress to legislate on matters for which it really has no Constitutional authority.