Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (10617)	4/6/2009 5:23:58 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Re: "I would like to see the Supreme Court define the Commerce Clause gradually more and more and more narrowly and throw out more laws challenged under the Commerce Clause." I TOTALLY AGREE with that one! (For example: a silly and [unconstitutional, IMO] overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause is the only way the federal government was able to federally criminalize marijuana, thus overriding State's rights in this area.) PREVIOUSLY --- (before this ridiculous 'everything is commerce' decision) --- it was thought that an actual Constitutional amendment would be necessary for this. That is what they had to do (amend the Constitution) to federally criminalize alcohol... and then again later to re-legalize it....