Top Law Schools

many of the Ct. opinions simply state in a matter of fact way that agricultural regulation for example are obviously within the province of state powers.

i'm specifically looking at the case of US v. Butler, but my question is a very general one... what exactly is understood to be "obviously" state powers?

Just going through my casebook, it seems that Congress could usually just "commerce clause" bulldoze its way to anything it damn well pleases, and it's usually a subjective interpretation by the member of the Courts on what it understands to be state powers.

Just so dang confused cause there's no reasoning when they come to that conclusion. They usually just throw the 10th amendment in there, but the 10th amendment is so open to interpretation as well... agh... who knows.

Your point is well taken by Justice Blackmun.

For traditional state functions, you could always look to history but it basically becomes the judges going fishing through whatever history books are on their desk at the time. This was the reason for doing away with the traditional state functions inquiry in Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 US 528, 546-47 (1985) ("We therefore now reject, as unsound in principle and unworkable in practice, a rule of state immunity from federal regulation that turns on a judicial appraisal of whether a particular government function is 'traditional' or 'integral'"). Garcia ends up being somewhat constrained by the anti-commandeering principle espoused in NY v US and Printz v US, but its still good law.

edit: reading comp fail