24secure wrote: Learning Hand wrote:
hombredulce wrote:There is no categorical no to regulation of activity that is not economic in nature. That is the point of the whole substantial effects test. What school do you go to?
I believe the test you're referring to is where a local activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The activity, as defined by the court, must still be "economic" in nature.
Would you (or the Court) say that this has to be a commodity that could be used to make something that could substantially affect interstate commerce?
And I know my school sucks. There's no need to dwell on that.
As I understand it, the holdings say it has to be economic in nature. “Economics,” as Stevens says, refers to “the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.” Raich.
Of course, Thomas blasted this broad interpretation with Scalia-like snark: "If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the'powers delegated' to the Federal Government are 'few and defined,' while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.' The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison). Scalia's concurring (with Stevens!?) opinion in Raich
attempts to extend the scope of congressional authority to noneconomic activity by using the Necessary and Proper Clause in conjunction with the Commerce Clause. That is, Congress could regulate noneconomic activity that would otherwise undercut a national regulatory scheme. But, as someone else said, Scalia's opinion is persuasive, not binding, authority. So, as it stands, it must be economic in nature. However, if you're taking an exam, and a Commerce Clause issue comes up with a congressional attempt to regulate a borderline noneconomic activity, you could probably score points by setting forth Scalia's argument to extend congressional power. Then, you could say that such a broad interpretation of federal power poses a grave threat to federalism and state sovereignty, and reject it.