Welcome to active participation on TFL, htjyang.
One of the reasons for starting this thread, was to build upon the analysis of Heller (Original Public Meaning) and apply it to the Commerce Clause. Something I feel that should have been done, long before now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tube_ee
In other words, if the product being traded intrastate was not marijuana, would the decision have been different?
I think it would have.
|
The very next Commerce Clause case that was decided by the Court was
Gonzales v. Oregon, a right to die case, using [drum beat, please] controlled substances.
The issues were substantially the same. Controlled drugs were at the core, but the majority wholly ignored their own precedent in Raich.
It would be fair to say that Madison did fear this power:
Quote:
"For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged."
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell, Letters 4:14--15, 13 Feb. 1829
|