Would Congress limit it's own authority or cede any (back) to the states?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 127-128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer's contention that Congress' admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee's own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself "commercial," i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. In assessing the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a "rational basis" exists for so concluding.

This thread has its roots in a discussion of the recent SCOTUS decision that medical marijuana, as permitted under individual state law, was not permissible under federal law. The quote above, taken from the decision, illustrates a key point: that the Federal government, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, may regulate any activity for which there is a "rational basis" to conclude that said activity may affect some interstate commerce.

This leaves a lot of wiggle room, as you might imagine. It means that your vegetable garden is subject to federal nitpicking, should Congress so desire.

So, my question is thus: Congress already has this power. Is it possible to persuade congressional representatives to write a new law which would explicity note that any activity solely within a state's own borders would not be regulable by the Congress (the net effect to restore (what I see as) proper state's rights)?

And I suppose I should add: would this be a good idea or a bad idea? Why or why not?

[treis]

Well Congress can to do whatever (within limits) they feel like with the power that they have. Passing a law saying they can't regulate certain things is of no legal significance becuase Congress can just as easily erase that law. The only real way to limit Congress' power in this case would be to pass an amendment. Whos with me? Lets make "Interstate commerce means commerce between states dummies" the 27th amendment!

[Airman Doors, USAF]

And the problem with that is that any Amendment would necessarily have to go through Congress, so it's safe to say that it would be shot down.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Well, an amendment sounds cool to me. But is it likely that it would pass? Would such an amedment be a good idea, or does it just seem like one? Why or why not?

I think it would a great idea, because I love the idea of living in a democratic republic, where each state is truly soveriegn with respect to activities within it's own borders. It would allow states to be different in many ways, while still retaining a standard medium of exchange (money) and a modest amount of public infrastructure. It would bring a truer ring to that note of freedom we're always sounding off, is what I think. Without choices, who can be free?

[furt]

to the OP: Not a chance in gravy-covered hell. ( I love what the mind comes up with at 3 am) Why should politican give up power?

Example #3,912 of why the 17th amendment is the worst thing that ever happened to the Constitution. The Framers knew that a federal government would attempt to arrogate all power to itself; they designated that Senate to be accountable to the states and not the people for exactly that reason.

[treis]

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article V

Basically either Congress needs to propose the amendment or enough states call Constitutional conventions. Neither seem very likely.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

I looked it up: the states have NEVER called a Constitutional convention. All Amendments have come from Congress.

[treis]

Seems about right. If Congress opposed an amendment that was popular enough for States to call conventions they would be voted out pretty quickly. I just quoted the relevent section for the sake of technical accuracy.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by treis

Well Congress can to do whatever (within limits) they feel like with the power that they have. Passing a law saying they can't regulate certain things is of no legal significance becuase Congress can just as easily erase that law. The only real way to limit Congress' power in this case would be to pass an amendment. Whos with me? Lets make "Interstate commerce means commerce between states dummies" the 27th amendment!

We already have a 27th Amendment, treis. It provides that no law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until after an intervening election of Representatives.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by Bricker

We already have a 27th Amendment, treis. It provides that no law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until after an intervening election of Representatives.

Which Congress took in the shorts, with great reluctance. They got blindsided by it since it was a pending Amendment from over 200 years prior with no time limit.

If they had to do it now, do you think they would? I think there would be a better chance of me landing on the moon tomorrow.

[treis]

Originally Posted by Bricker

We already have a 27th Amendment, treis. It provides that no law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until after an intervening election of Representatives.

Oops, 28th amendment then.