🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <322E3293.7DD1@mc.duke.edu> Seth Fehrs <fehrs002@mc.duke.edu> writes:
>From: Seth Fehrs <fehrs002@mc.duke.edu>
>Subject: Re: Tobacco-10th-Drug-Commerce thread
>Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 18:53:23 -0700

>Jeff Rossman wrote:
>> Well YOU can claim whatever you want, except you are factually, and
>> unequivocally 100% wrong. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of
>> Supreme Court opinions based on the fact that it is accepted constitutional law
>> that in-state commerce may be regulated if it has an effect on interstate
>> commerce. You may not LIKE that that is the case, but the concept has never
>> been challenged. Of course there is always an argument as to how much
>> qualifies as affecting interstate commerce, but this basic constitutional
>> principle remains.

>This has been the argument all along, that the SC gives too much leeway to
>Congress with the interstate commerce clause.   As it is currently interpreted,
>Congress can pass almost any law they like.  Maybe YOU jumped in a little late. 

>The concept has never been challenged...?

  It may be unclear but I was referring to the basic conept of the Interstate 
commerce clause. Of course it can, and has, been taken to ridiculous extremes.
An argument can be made that my 9 year old daughter selling lemonade has an 
effect on interstate commerce. I don't think we disagree on what we're saying. 

>-- 
>Seth J. Fehrs                                         At large member
>FEHRS002@MC.DUKE.EDU                                  NC Libertarian Party 
>Programmer Analyst, DUMC                              Executive Committee