Comments on: Wither Federalism http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/wither-federalism.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:46:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: James http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/wither-federalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-19054 James Tue, 05 May 2009 13:21:22 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=7885#comment-19054 @Another guy named Dan, Your logic is flawed. By your reasoning, Congress could mandate that homes everywhere must adopt a new type of space heater because that space heater contains parts that are related to interstate commerce. You're putting the cart before the horse. @Brandon Berg I know you're half joking, but the "future affect on commerce" argument has been forsaken in both Lopez and Morrison, so that's out. The "personal opinion of five justices" rule is still more or less in force... @Another guy named Dan,

Your logic is flawed. By your reasoning, Congress could mandate that homes everywhere must adopt a new type of space heater because that space heater contains parts that are related to interstate commerce. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

@Brandon Berg
I know you’re half joking, but the “future affect on commerce” argument has been forsaken in both Lopez and Morrison, so that’s out. The “personal opinion of five justices” rule is still more or less in force…

]]> By: Brandon Berg http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/wither-federalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-19045 Brandon Berg Tue, 05 May 2009 08:42:01 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=7885#comment-19045 If a kid drowns, that's going to sharply curtail his ability to engage in future interstate commerce, and therefore—nah, we all know it's allowed under the "The Federal Government can do anything of which five members of the Supreme Court personally approve" clause. If a kid drowns, that’s going to sharply curtail his ability to engage in future interstate commerce, and therefore—nah, we all know it’s allowed under the “The Federal Government can do anything of which five members of the Supreme Court personally approve” clause.

]]> By: Tudorman http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/wither-federalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-19025 Tudorman Tue, 05 May 2009 02:12:40 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=7885#comment-19025 Which legislator's kid was killed by a lawn dart? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_dart#Banned_from_sale_in_the_U.S._and_Canada Which legislator’s kid was killed by a lawn dart?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_dart#Banned_from_sale_in_the_U.S._and_Canada

]]> By: Dr. T http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/wither-federalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-19012 Dr. T Mon, 04 May 2009 22:59:40 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=7885#comment-19012 To Another Guy Named Dan: Your body is made up of trillions of individual atoms that most certainly came from many different states. Are all of your actions therefore subject to federal control under the Interstate Commerce exception? The Interstate Commerce exception (to federalism) is supposed to be concerned only with trade among the states. As others noted, swimming pool drain safety requirements have nothing to do with Interstate Commerce. The inground pools aren't crossing state lines, and states aren't erecting trade barriers to the pools from other states. The new law exists for two reasons: as a sop to a federal politician and as a test to see just how far Congress can stretch the Interstate Commerce exception. Since the Supreme Court has used severely twisted "logic" to uphold about 98% of Congress's stretchings, even this absurd law may be upheld. To Another Guy Named Dan:

Your body is made up of trillions of individual atoms that most certainly came from many different states. Are all of your actions therefore subject to federal control under the Interstate Commerce exception?

The Interstate Commerce exception (to federalism) is supposed to be concerned only with trade among the states. As others noted, swimming pool drain safety requirements have nothing to do with Interstate Commerce. The inground pools aren’t crossing state lines, and states aren’t erecting trade barriers to the pools from other states. The new law exists for two reasons: as a sop to a federal politician and as a test to see just how far Congress can stretch the Interstate Commerce exception. Since the Supreme Court has used severely twisted “logic” to uphold about 98% of Congress’s stretchings, even this absurd law may be upheld.

]]> By: tribal elder http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/wither-federalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-19009 tribal elder Mon, 04 May 2009 22:21:02 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=7885#comment-19009 "Maybe they do it through the Corp of Engineers where if there is puddle in the midddle of your field and it drains into a waterway that is connected to an interstate waterway, they presume authority under interstate commerce clauses." You forgot the part about the migratory goose's poop. “Maybe they do it through the Corp of Engineers where if there is puddle in the midddle of your field and it drains into a waterway that is connected to an interstate waterway, they presume authority under interstate commerce clauses.”

You forgot the part about the migratory goose’s poop.

]]> By: Zach http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/wither-federalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-18997 Zach Mon, 04 May 2009 20:31:04 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=7885#comment-18997 I figured you were going to say that the reason the law was enacted was because a pool contractor in the bill's sponsor's district had contributed a lot of money to the sponsor's campaign fund and/or was on the brink of bankruptcy. I figured you were going to say that the reason the law was enacted was because a pool contractor in the bill’s sponsor’s district had contributed a lot of money to the sponsor’s campaign fund and/or was on the brink of bankruptcy.

]]> By: Chris http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/wither-federalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-18996 Chris Mon, 04 May 2009 20:27:10 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=7885#comment-18996 How about a law to ban naming laws after people? How about a law to ban naming laws after people?

]]> By: Sean http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/wither-federalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-18993 Sean Mon, 04 May 2009 19:07:53 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=7885#comment-18993 Maybe they do it through the Corp of Engineers where if there is puddle in the midddle of your field and it drains into a waterway that is connected to an interstate waterway, they presume authority under interstate commerce clauses. Maybe they do it through the Corp of Engineers where if there is puddle in the midddle of your field and it drains into a waterway that is connected to an interstate waterway, they presume authority under interstate commerce clauses.

]]> By: Another guy named Dan http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/wither-federalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-18992 Another guy named Dan Mon, 04 May 2009 19:05:14 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=7885#comment-18992 James, I disagree with your reasoning. The pool drain is part of the recirculation/filtration system. this system is made up of multiple components, each of which is or could be a good involved wth interstate commerce. Thus according to precedent, the government is within its rights to regulate their use. I don't think that this is a good idea overall, but I think it is an example of the overreach in the interpretation of the active commerce clause. James, I disagree with your reasoning.

The pool drain is part of the recirculation/filtration system. this system is made up of multiple components, each of which is or could be a good involved wth interstate commerce. Thus according to precedent, the government is within its rights to regulate their use.

I don’t think that this is a good idea overall, but I think it is an example of the overreach in the interpretation of the active commerce clause.

]]> By: James http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/wither-federalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-18988 James Mon, 04 May 2009 18:24:56 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=7885#comment-18988 This isn't a valid exercise of the Federal Commerce Power. No way this gets upheld, under that power anyway. This isn’t a valid exercise of the Federal Commerce Power. No way this gets upheld, under that power anyway.

]]>