Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’

h1

Supreme Court Decisions Every American Should Know About #2: U.S. v. Lopez

August 10, 2009

Today I continue my series of posts on Supreme Court decisions that, in my opinion, greatly redefined how a particular provision of the Constitution is interpreted or had a long-lasting impact on some area of public policy in the United States, for better or for worse.

This installment features the case United States v. Lopez, a 1995 case on the Commerce Clause which may have actually saved federalism in America from near-certain demise.

_______________________

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) put an end to the ridiculous expansion of Congressional power through the Commerce Clause that had occurred for the 50 years following the decision in Wickard v. Filburn (see my post on Wickard for more info). Justice Rehnquist, writing the opinion, put his foot down and said that there is a clear limit to what constitutes economic activity in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Commerce Clause.

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Supreme Court Decisions Every American Should Know About #1: Wickard v. Filburn

August 5, 2009

Today will be the first installment of a new series of posts I intend to write: Supreme Court Decisions Every American Should Know About.

Each post will feature a particular Supreme Court decision that, in my opinion, greatly redefined how a particular provision of the Constitution is interpreted or had a long-lasting impact on some area of public policy in the United States, for better or for worse.

___________________________________

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) was described by JusticeĀ  William Rehnquist in 1995 as “perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce.” This decision set a precedent which for the next 53 years would enable Congress to use the commerce clause to regulate all sorts of commercial activities that were once safe within the confines of the states’ police powers.

Growing too much of this would get you a hefty fine during the New Deal, even though starving people everywhere in America would have loved you for it.

Growing too much of this would get you a hefty fine during the New Deal, even though starving people everywhere in America would have loved you for it.

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

A quick note on Sotomayor

July 28, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor will be one step closer to becoming the newest justice of the Supreme Court after her final Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 5 minutes.

Republicans are split on whether or not to vote in the affirmative for her confirmation. Most who support her are just jumping on the Obama bandwagon and choosing to ignore her blatant racism and intent to bring race politics to America’s Constitution. Other rogue Republicans just want to pander to the Hispanic vote.

Should Republicans choose to vote in favor of her confirmation, they will be affirming not only her racist attitudes against non-approved social demographics, but also Obama’s pick of an activist judge who wishes to replace over 225 years of Constitutional precedent with a new standard of “judicial empathy.” While many would argue that Republicans have no chance of fighting her confirmation anyways, and that they should approve her in that case, this is contrary to the oaths the Senators have taken (and the President and Supreme Court justices, for that matter) to defend the Constitution and the United States of America.

God save the Constitution.