part of this complete police state!

[dilletante]

remember those tv ads for cereals that used to show a bowl of the advertised cereal on a table covered with all sorts of delicious breakfast foods with a voiceover saying "part of this complete breakfast

Comments

[dilletante]

On another note, Gonzales v Raich had precedent going back to 1942, which is why the majority opinion cited it.

i've seen plenty of lawyers saying that, and they're lawyers and i'm not, so what do i know? as a lay person, it seems like bunkum to me. wickard v filburn was outrageous to start with, and this would have been a fine opportunity to overturn it and say that congress's powers aren't infinite after all. but even short of that, even though filburn wasn't producing wheat for interstate use, he was producing it for use in a commercial enterprise which itself engaged in interstate commerce. it was in no way crazy to say that the wheat he grew and used on his own farm replaced wheat he otherwise would in fact have bought on the interstate market

[dilletante]

i note that korematsu v us was from around the same time as wickard v filburn. a shining beacon of shame for our country that likewise stood in the courts since before my dad was born; though apparently the justice department publically repudiated it a coupe of years ago. not until several years after gonzales v raich, though.