Out of Touch Part 2

In my previous post I discussed some things Amy Davidson talked about in her article. Today I will address her misconception about the constitutionality of a certain precedent she alluded to.

The precedent she alluded to is Wickard vsFilburn and all subsequent court rulings that have used this case as precedent. In Wickard vs Filburn the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the authority to regulate not only commerce that crossed state lines but also anything that had the potential to affect interstate commerce. The Founders intended for the Commerce clause to preclude the kind of discriminatory legislation by the States that was permitted under the Articles of Confederation.

The Commerce Clause has been used by Congress to justify a very wide range of laws but is that authority being abused? Under the Articles of Confederation the States were implementing protectionist economic policies and the Commerce Clause was intended to prevent that from happening again by establishing free trade across State lines and nationalizing trade tariffs. This article describes the history of the Commerce Clause from its beginning through it's history in the Courts in a non political way.

The Commerce Clause had become the the single greatest source of government power until Chief Justice Roberts ruled that Congress can no longer regulate everything simply because it has the potential to affect interstate Commerce. In one bold stroke The Supreme Court has gone back to a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause and has vastly reduced the power of the Federal government.

I believe this is a good thing since I believe the government has had far to much power. However, how this will all play out remains to be seen.