Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATED: Details of Virginia's Lawsuit to Stop HCR (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As Cuccinelli's brief points out, the Rehnquist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    court limited the sweep of the Commerce Clause power in Lopez and Morrison.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:28:07 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  General welfare clause not commerce clause will (0+ / 0-)

      be Democrats argument. Under Tax and Spend Clause is the General welfare Clause giving plenary power. I think this is the appoach not merely commerce clause.

      Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[22] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[15]

        I not sure about this but the constitutional expert on msnbc (don't recall name) mentioned these points.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site