View Single Post
Old June 7, 2005, 07:55 AM   #37
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Dolanp, Justice O'Conner made just those observations in her dissent.

Quote:
Most commercial goods or services have some sort of privately producible analogue. Home care substitutes for daycare. Charades games substitute for movie tickets. Backyard or windowsill gardening substitutes for going to the supermarket. To draw the line wherever private activity affects the demand for market goods is to draw no line at all, and to declare everything economic. We have already rejected the result that would follow--a federal police power. Lopez, supra, at 564.
Thomas concurred with:
Quote:
In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general police power over the Nation. 514 U. S., at 584, 600 (concurring opinion). This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause. When agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration raided Monson s home, they seized six cannabis plants. If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce. United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (THOMAS, J., concurring).
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04302 seconds with 8 queries