Look for the fifth sentence.
Then post the three sentences that follow that fifth sentence on page 123.
“[The] Court appears to reason that the placement of local activity in a comprehensive scheme confirms that it is essential to that scheme.
If the Court is right, then Lopez stands for nothing more than a drafting guide: Congress should have described the relevant crime as “transfer or possession of a firearm anywhere in the nation” [or attached] the regulation of intrastate activity to a pre-existing comprehensive (or even not-so-comprehensive) scheme.
[If] the Court always defers to Congress as it does today, little may be left to the notion of enumerated powers.”
I am, as always, emotionally obliterated. You?
And now, because sauce for the moose is slaw for the gander, I nominate/incriminate the following gaggle:
2 comments:
Congress should have described the relevant crime as anything that pisses me off. This, in a nutshell, is the problem with democracy.
trying to make sense out of Lopez? definitely a work of fiction.
Post a Comment