Hacker News Reader

Comment by Buttons840 | Hacker News Reader

As an example, my understanding is that the federal government can regulate my ability to grow a plant and consume it in my own home based upon their argument that I'm participating in interstate commerce. The feds argued that growing a plan is participating in interstate commerce[1]. This law will stand while the court clutches their pearls about the environmental protection agency seeking to protect the environment.

[1]: I'm trying to find the source. Something to do with the commerce clause I think. There was a court case where the government clearly argued that even local actions inside the state count as interstate commerce. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn?wprov=sfla1

View on HN

Wickard v Filburn has got to be one of the worst precedents ever. I sincerely hope the SC reverses it next.

By the same logic, I can never collect my own rain water as it would impact interstate commerce.

Similarly, I could never have a free school play for parents, because I would be taking money away from local theaters, and that would eventually resonate to interstate commerce.

The Constitution's interstate commerce clause has been purposely misinterpreted to mean regulation of commerce within a state if you can abstract nth order effects to another state. In actuality, all it is supposed to to is allow the regulation of commerce across state lines, meaning regulation on the transport of materials from one state to another.

This one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn?wprov=sfla1

Yes. Thank you.

The court can't just overturn laws. Cases have to be brought to them first. So your argument of "why is X bad law allowed to stand when they just overturned Y?" doesn't hold water.

What do you think of this article? https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/The-Su...

"""The Supreme Court decision ignored and damaged long-standing Constitutional principles designed to limit the power of the judiciary. Courts are not allowed to just issue pronouncements of what they think the law should be. They can only act to resolve a real controversy between adverse parties and enforce the will of Congress. Instead, the court changed a lawfully enacted statute without having any final or even proposed regulation before it. There is no “case or controversy” here, which for 200 years has been a rock-solid prerequisite for judicial action. Hence, the opinion violates the long-standing separation of powers principle, which until now, has restrained the judiciary from ideological adventuring."""

It appears the court has done exactly what you said they cannot. If you disagree then I would ask: What case was brought before the court before they made this ruling?

> What case was brought before the court before they made this ruling?

West Virginia vs. EPA was the case this ruling was made on. The article is whining because the regulation that West Virginia sued the EPA over was already pulled back, and somehow that means they can't be sued anymore? Completely disagree with that line of thinking.

> The feds argued that growing a plan is participating in interstate commerce. This law will stand

That's not guaranteed. Has it been challenged?

Involve yourself in efforts to bring a challenging case. I’m not aware of a recent affirmation of Wickard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com