You Have To Be Effin Kidding Me!
I picked up on this story about Arlen Specter giving SCOTUS nominee John Roberts a hard time. At first the Al-Pazeera piece seemed like it was on target, the court does deserve some chastisement, however this is not what I had in mind.
How does either one of those pieces of legislation fall under interstate commerce? I spent blogs talking about the need for the judiciary to adhere to the text of legislation or constitution (or at least the philosophy of that) and it seems to me Congress needs to do that as well. Interstate commerce does not give the Federal Government authority to regulate everything under the sun. It licenses the Federal government to regulate – interstate commerce. Is "interstate commerce" too vague?
The court was correct in overturning those cases. Funny, I was hoping to hear criticism along the lines of how McCain-Fiendgold was not ruled unconstitutional (virtual child porn has more status under the constitution than does political speech according to the SCOTUS) or the courts resorting to the Privy Council of Jamaica to make rulings.
No, Arlen is like a thief complaining when his booty is returned to its rightful owenrs. There are valid criticisms to make of the court, Arlen's complaint is not.
In one case Specter cited, U.S. v. Lopez, the high court in 1995 threw out a federal law that banned possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, saying Congress lacked the authority to enact it. In U.S. v. Morrison, the Supreme Court in 2000 threw out part of the federal Violence Against Women Act, saying rape victims could not sue their attackers in federal court because it was up to the states – not Congress – to give such help to women victimized by violence.
In both cases, Congress said its power to regulate interstate commerce gave it the ability to pass the laws. The court disagreed.
Lawmakers have bristled at those two decisions, which Specter said "overturned almost 60 years of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause."
Source: AP via Yahoo News - Senator Complains to Nominee About Court In both cases, Congress said its power to regulate interstate commerce gave it the ability to pass the laws. The court disagreed.
Lawmakers have bristled at those two decisions, which Specter said "overturned almost 60 years of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause."
How does either one of those pieces of legislation fall under interstate commerce? I spent blogs talking about the need for the judiciary to adhere to the text of legislation or constitution (or at least the philosophy of that) and it seems to me Congress needs to do that as well. Interstate commerce does not give the Federal Government authority to regulate everything under the sun. It licenses the Federal government to regulate – interstate commerce. Is "interstate commerce" too vague?
The court was correct in overturning those cases. Funny, I was hoping to hear criticism along the lines of how McCain-Fiendgold was not ruled unconstitutional (virtual child porn has more status under the constitution than does political speech according to the SCOTUS) or the courts resorting to the Privy Council of Jamaica to make rulings.
No, Arlen is like a thief complaining when his booty is returned to its rightful owenrs. There are valid criticisms to make of the court, Arlen's complaint is not.
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 8:51 AM
<< Home