Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Locobot
Sorry but the constitution reads in Article 1 section 8 "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Wickard v. Filburn is simply reasserting the power of the federal government which had, by previous courts, been ruled unapplicable to some forms of intrastate commerce. It's a different interpretation than the court had previously held, sure, but I don't see it as a wholesale abrogation of the constitution.
|
Wrong. Prior to Wickard v. Filburn, the Federal Government hadn't been able to touch many areas of our lives. Because of Wickard v. Filburn, practically anything, and I mean ANYTHING (read the facts in Wickard) suddenly became reachable by the Federal government under the ICC clause. Entire areas of the law which had previously been regulatable only by the States suddenly became regulatable by the Federal government. Take, for example, what had happened in U.S. v. Lopez, which started the restriction of the line of thought started in Wickard: The Federal Government decided that firearms could not be brought within a certain distance of any public school. Their reasoning and basis for the ability to regulate this stemmed from fear of guns interrupting and disrupting schools, which trained students, who at some point in the future would somehow be employed in something remotely affecting Interstate Commerce. Under Wickard, this was reachable by the Federal Government.