Comment by syshum
7 years ago
>the Commerce Clause, which was extremely broadly written.
Not really, however in Wickard the Supreme Court simply ignored the entire words written, any context, and any rational thought processes around the words written to come up with a massive expansion of federal power that basic renders the enumeration clause pointless, and granting the federal government almost unlimited authority over everything
>>>>[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Seems narrow and precise to me, how 9 supposedly intelligent people came away reading in to the passage "Yes Congress can regulate how much wheat a man grows on his own farm for his own consumption" defy's all logic and reason
Because they didn't decide based on the Constitution, or on the facts of the case. They decided based on what would be convenient for the war effort in World War II.
As Francis Schaeffer said, "If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute." If your ultimate value is "whatever is good for society" or "the nation", there is nothing you cannot trample on in support of that value - even the Constitution.
Which highlights the problem as the Supreme Court should not factor what is "good for society" nor what is "good for the nation" neither of which has any relevance to what is constitutional or not.