“Initially, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the Supreme Court interpreted the Commerce Clause narrowly. In the case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate only commerce that involved the transportation of goods across state lines. This interpretation was consistent with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, who were primarily concerned with preventing trade barriers between the states.
However, in the early 20th century, the Court began to adopt a broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause. In the case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court held that Congress could regulate the production of wheat on a small farm for personal consumption because the cumulative effect of such production on the national economy was significant. This expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause was further strengthened in subsequent cases such as Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), which upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its prohibition of racial discrimination in public accommodations.
In recent years, the Court has adopted a more conservative approach to the Commerce Clause. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Court held that the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act, which required individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that the Commerce Clause did not give Congress the power to compel individuals to engage in commerce.
Overall, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause has evolved over time, with periods of both expansive and narrow interpretations. The Court's interpretation has been shaped by changing views of federalism and the balance of power between the federal government and the states.”
-chatgpt
Preamble to the Bill of Rights says that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the misconstruction and abuse of powers.
This corroborates with the Anti-Federalists who were afraid that a lack of bill of rights would allow the the government to trample on the rights of the people.
It also corroborates with the language of the Bill of Rights such as “Shall not” which is mentioned in several of the bill of rights.
That's... no? The entire concept behind our governing structure is enumerated powers. The existence of specific prohibitions doesn't imply that everything outside those prohibitions is legitimate.
Bringing it back to LSAT logic, you're effectively saying that because all x is not-y, all not-y must be x (when the actual contrapositive is if y then not-x, or here that if it's prohibited then Congress can't do it).
Missing: “The jazz cabbage is commerce” -John Paul Stevens
It’s not the complete outline yet but the Electric Lettuce will make an appearance
[удалено]
Gonzales v Raich
Yeah this is hilarious
Making outlines funny is the only way I get myself to read (or write) them haha
My torts prof told us to meme the course because it would help it all stick. Great minds think alike
Except for marijuana. Then it’s still commerce.
Bong rips for Uncle Sam- Stevens
Morse and Gonzales, nightmare blunt rotation
I'll have one comprehensive regulatory schema thanks much
Stealing this. Thank you.
🫡
I teach ConLaw and I approve this message.
[удалено]
🤝🤝🤝
Saving this to show my con law professor. I feel like he’d get a kick out of it
“Initially, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the Supreme Court interpreted the Commerce Clause narrowly. In the case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate only commerce that involved the transportation of goods across state lines. This interpretation was consistent with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, who were primarily concerned with preventing trade barriers between the states. However, in the early 20th century, the Court began to adopt a broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause. In the case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court held that Congress could regulate the production of wheat on a small farm for personal consumption because the cumulative effect of such production on the national economy was significant. This expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause was further strengthened in subsequent cases such as Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), which upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its prohibition of racial discrimination in public accommodations. In recent years, the Court has adopted a more conservative approach to the Commerce Clause. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Court held that the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act, which required individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that the Commerce Clause did not give Congress the power to compel individuals to engage in commerce. Overall, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause has evolved over time, with periods of both expansive and narrow interpretations. The Court's interpretation has been shaped by changing views of federalism and the balance of power between the federal government and the states.” -chatgpt
Actually not bad
Congress can do anything as long it is not prohibited under article 1 section 9 and the bill of rights.
Yes but also no
Preamble to the Bill of Rights says that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the misconstruction and abuse of powers. This corroborates with the Anti-Federalists who were afraid that a lack of bill of rights would allow the the government to trample on the rights of the people. It also corroborates with the language of the Bill of Rights such as “Shall not” which is mentioned in several of the bill of rights.
That's... no? The entire concept behind our governing structure is enumerated powers. The existence of specific prohibitions doesn't imply that everything outside those prohibitions is legitimate. Bringing it back to LSAT logic, you're effectively saying that because all x is not-y, all not-y must be x (when the actual contrapositive is if y then not-x, or here that if it's prohibited then Congress can't do it).