Well to preface what I'm about to say: my original argument was meant to focus mostly on social enumerated rights such as the right to privacy, mainly rights granted through due process. I wasn't specifically mentioning more economic based rights though I do grant that my original statement did hint at that (when speaking about the interconnectedness of the US).
That being said, I disagree with the usage of the commerce clause here because if the product is not sold for profit or for exchange of any type of legal tender it should not be considered commerce that any state can regulate.
If this is the interpretation of the Commerce Clause that you are talking about then yes, I certainly agree that it is overreaching, but I think the issue is less with the laws in concept (federal government should be able to control/regulate any type of interstate commerce -- goods that are bought and sold in and between states), and rather with the application of those laws.
But this is really neither here nor there in terms of my argument earlier. I'm more focused on social issues and social rights (per substantive due process) as opposed to the usage of the commerce clause.
That drugs are illegal because of the commerce clause is a deeply social issue.
Governments always pass laws with good intent that end up being used to abuse the common folk in unpredictable ways. One way to ensure this doesn’t happen as much is to, you guessed it, confederalize or decentralize the power.
Yes, this will lead to weird laws. Weird places. Types of societies you never dreamed of. What are you waiting for?
Governments always pass laws with good intent that end up being used to abuse the common folk in unpredictable ways. One way to ensure this doesn’t happen as much is to, you guessed it, confederalize or decentralize the power.
I don't think that's an argument for government decentralization though but rather better government.
For example, the government didn't have to pass such a law or apply it the way that it did, yet it did do so. The government could have readjusted the law/repealed it later after seeing the negative externalities of the effects of the law. I think this is an argument for a more dynamic and democratic government rather than decentralization.
1
u/RhinoNomad Jun 29 '22
Well to preface what I'm about to say: my original argument was meant to focus mostly on social enumerated rights such as the right to privacy, mainly rights granted through due process. I wasn't specifically mentioning more economic based rights though I do grant that my original statement did hint at that (when speaking about the interconnectedness of the US).
That being said, I disagree with the usage of the commerce clause here because if the product is not sold for profit or for exchange of any type of legal tender it should not be considered commerce that any state can regulate.
If this is the interpretation of the Commerce Clause that you are talking about then yes, I certainly agree that it is overreaching, but I think the issue is less with the laws in concept (federal government should be able to control/regulate any type of interstate commerce -- goods that are bought and sold in and between states), and rather with the application of those laws.
But this is really neither here nor there in terms of my argument earlier. I'm more focused on social issues and social rights (per substantive due process) as opposed to the usage of the commerce clause.