Quote:
|
To support their contrary submission, respondents rely heavily on two of our more recent Commerce Clause cases. In their myopic focus, they overlook the larger context of modern-era Commerce Clause jurisprudence preserved by those cases. Moreover, even in the narrow prism of respondents’ creation, they read those cases far too broadly. Those two cases, of course, are Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, and Morrison, 529 U.S. 598. As an initial matter, the statutory challenges at issue in those cases were markedly different from the challenge respondents pursue in the case at hand. Here, respondents ask us to excise individual applications of a concededly valid statutory scheme. In contrast, in both Lopez and Morrison, the parties asserted that a particular statute or provision fell outside Congress’ commerce power in its entirety. This distinction is pivotal for we have often reiterated that “[w]here the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power ‘to excise, as trivial, individual instances’ of the class.” Perez, 402 U.S., at 154 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Wirtz, 392 U.S., at 193); see also Hodel, 452 U.S., at 308.
|
then later
Quote:
|
Unlike those at issue in Lopez and Morrison, the activities regulated by the CSA are quintessentially economic. “Economics” refers to “the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966).
|
Nevermind that the constitution doesn't contain the word "economics" or "economic." It only talks about commerce, which to me is a much less theoretical word, and doesn't include production. Does anyone have an
18th century definition of "commerce" and "economics" handy?
The core of the decision is that marijuana production is somehow economic in a way that carrying a gun in a school zone, or rape, is not. It would be interesting if another case similar to Morrison came up, and it was argued that rape was production of foetuses (optionally to be aborted! :uhoh: )...
The contortions the SCOTUS goes through to make decisions these days would be laughable if they weren't so disastrous in their effects on honest citizens.