tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11831128.post5417266588894552989..comments2023-10-31T08:50:19.138-06:00Comments on Economics and Liberty: The Court & The Commerce ClauseLarry Eubankshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15566964700226634137noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11831128.post-73052051940721914362012-07-01T09:43:23.916-06:002012-07-01T09:43:23.916-06:00Excellent.
Doesn't this suggest that the powe...Excellent.<br /><br />Doesn't this suggest that the power we have come to say is the power to regulate interstate commerce is not the enumerated power in the Constitution? In other words, the phrase "among the states" means pretty specifically your illustration of states A, B, and C. It does not mean interstate commerce.Larry Eubankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15566964700226634137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11831128.post-31545644414928497662012-06-29T20:32:58.653-06:002012-06-29T20:32:58.653-06:00A very material object of this power was the relie...A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other <br />Federalist 42 is clear on the intent of the commerce clause. To prevent State A from imposing a tax on State B if B needs to ship goods through A to get to C. Very simple.<br /><br />"A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through Austin Frindtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11831128.post-37737120326056995692012-06-29T12:46:13.255-06:002012-06-29T12:46:13.255-06:00Why not recognize Wickard was wrongly decided to b...Why not recognize Wickard was wrongly decided to begin with? Instead of making a marginal change within a conceptual framework which is inconsistent with the Constitution, why not return to the words that are still in the Constitution?<br /><br />Who are you?Larry Eubankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15566964700226634137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11831128.post-31477664426962264092012-06-29T12:25:01.645-06:002012-06-29T12:25:01.645-06:00Didn't Roberts specifically reject the governm...Didn't Roberts specifically reject the government's commerce clause claim and scale back the jurisprudence in that area a bit?<br /><br />When I say "scale back," I am not making a grand claim; I'm just referring to the fact that after the New Deal jurisprudence and <i>Wickard v. Filburn</i>, the power was basically unlimited. This opinion, however, recognizes at least one Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757308284578957633noreply@blogger.com