Bubba wrote:And that explanation right there shows why a narrow interpretation of the constitution is necessary unless, of couse, it is your intention to continue expanding the powers of the Federal government at the expense of the states and the people and overriding the 10th Amendment. We've been using the Commerce Clause since at least the New Deal to expand Federal powers and have gradually made the 10th Amendment meaningless. Unfortunately, the 10th Amendment states explicitly what this country was founded on - that power flows up from the people not down from government - and if we continue in the expansion of Federal power we will, eventually, reverse that founding principle.
Unfortunately, whether the powers of the Federal government should be expanded or limited seem to depend on the particular political issue at hand rather than purely constitutional considerations. How else could Congress pass DOMA which clearly stands in opposition to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Following Wickard, conservative Justice Scalia, who obviously rails against the health insurance mandate, concludes in Gonzales v. Raich the Federal government can impose regulations on private citizens who grow products solely for their own use as allowed by their state because he views the Commerce Clause as permitting federal regulation of intrastate, non-commercial activity claiming such activities effect interstate commerce. Talk about supporting sweeping federal powers. With this interpretation, federal regulation of just about anything is allowed, except of course requiring individuals to purchase health insurance because apparently those who don't buy insurance yet use the health care system do not effect interstate commerce in any way.