Quote:
|
the commerce clause ultimate principal is avoiding a state to place itself in a position of economic isolation, thus protecting national solidarity
|
I can't keep up with you legal scholars, especially regarding analysis of cases/opinions or even how the courts develop their logic(???) in interpreting the constitution. I do try to study the history of the development of the constitution, but I very likely also fall short there.
The above quote seems like, maybe, the most positive description of the original purpose of the commerce clause that I have every read (protecting national solidarity - sounds like a good thing!). I have been viewing the commerce clause as a negative mandate in regard to intrastate commerce, i.e., it's principle is that only the federal government can regulate foreign commerce (certainly fits in with "national solidarity" viewpoint), AND that the states may NOT regulate commerce between each other in the same way (states can NOT act like mini countries with one another).
I like my "negative principle" approach better, but the positive approach might explain a little of why congress, with the courts' more than willing blessing, have tended to want to make careers of implementing manymany federal controls on what should be an "only what is absolutely necessary" area. Was it James Madison who wrote that the commerce clause was the part of the constitution that he actually feared?
Please, scholars, continue keeping us informed on what is going on. I only ask that you put a little more focus on helping us legal illiterates understand what you are telling us.
Thank you, Antipitas, for your opening post. It was great, except that I still need more help on understanding the cases. I often wish that we could implement a more "zero based" method, as in zero based budgeting, of constitutional judgements rather than most always having to justify to previous decisions. The Supreme Court needs to learn to admit past mistakes.