Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Topic: The Interstate Commerce Clause: everything and nothing. doublethink and singlethink
Anonymous A started this discussion 4 years ago#102,988
According to the constitution, interstate commerce is in the realm of the federal government alone to regulate.
On the one hand, interstate commerce means everything. Growing a plant in your own home is interstate commerce and can be regulated and prohibited by the federal government accordingly.
But yet on the other hand, a state banning things like the online purchase of cigarettes from states which do not ban online sales, to the outright prohibition of entire classes of drugs not otherwise illegal in other states is not interstate commerce and is in the realm of states to regulate.
We are then led to believe interstate commerce is everything yet, at the same time, nothing at all.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 5 hours later[^][v]#1,163,016
Yeah, the ICC is a confusing mess of "whenever we want to enforce stuff" legislation and judicial decisions.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,163,036
Protip: this applies to basically all areas of condtitutional interpretation, not just this clause!
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,163,042
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Did protip really say that? It's a cool post though.
(Edited 6 seconds later.)
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,163,048
@1,163,036 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The Constitution is whatever 5/9 senior citizens think it is at that moment. I have a Republican friend who keeps getting all pissy about "unconstitutional" stuff done by Biden/Obama/Lina Hidalgo/The Squad/people with (D) next to their names
I keep trying to explain how it works, that the Constitution - like fiat currency - is just a piece of paper but he just does not get it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 years ago, 6 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,163,091
@1,163,036 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Most other areas and amendments are not this bad. The Commerce clause is probably the most notorious in this way.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 4 years ago, 20 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,163,194
@1,163,042 (D)
He did. I am just as surprised as you are. @1,163,048 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Theoretically that's not true, but in all practicality basically yes, which is why it is so important for supreme court justices to resign or die at the correct times. @previous (A)
Eh, maybe but that's what happens when you have a constitution that is short and lays out principles of law.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,163,203
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It really isn't, though.