The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

green-grizzly · September 9, 2009, 12:10 AM

Although Lopez and Morrison are commerce clause cases, to me it seems they are really addressing federalism issues. The cases are more about preserving state authority than limiting Congressional power, but that can't be addressed in a straightforward way because the 10th amendment has been nuetered. Scalia mentions this state sovreignty issue in his Raich concurrance.

I don't see Comstock changing much; it is really quite similar to Lopez and Morrison, so if the law is struck down it will be as part of the Lopez state authority exception to the commerce clause rather than because no actual commerce or potential commerce is involved (although I think both are necessary given Raich).

All these cases do is preserve power for the states, not liberty for the people.

September 9, 2009, 12:10 AM	#28
green-grizzly Member Join Date: January 4, 2008 Posts: 36	Although Lopez and Morrison are commerce clause cases, to me it seems they are really addressing federalism issues. The cases are more about preserving state authority than limiting Congressional power, but that can't be addressed in a straightforward way because the 10th amendment has been nuetered. Scalia mentions this state sovreignty issue in his Raich concurrance. I don't see Comstock changing much; it is really quite similar to Lopez and Morrison, so if the law is struck down it will be as part of the Lopez state authority exception to the commerce clause rather than because no actual commerce or potential commerce is involved (although I think both are necessary given Raich). All these cases do is preserve power for the states, not liberty for the people. __________________ The only thing of value which we have at present is our arms and our courage. So long as we keep our arms we fancy that we can make good use of our courage; but if we surrender our arms we shall lose our lives as well. -Theopompus Last edited by green-grizzly; September 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM.