Exactly, but the health care case limited even that. Congress could pass a national seat belt law, but they wouldn’t be able to tie old road funding to it, only new road funding.
The ACA ruling was actually a bonanza for strict constructionists, even though the law itself was mostly saved. We got a commerce clause limitation and a spending power limitation.
The 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
By your post I assume you believe there should be no state legislatures and everything should be run at the federal level. That kind of bullshit statist attitude is exactly why the 10th Amendment was written.
So how do you decide what is legitimately federal-law area and what isn’t? You gave us a list but without reasoning. We already know you’re a Tenther.
I can’t believe that matters to him. He’s going to win re-election, no question about it. If Booker is running for Senate on the same ballot, enough Dems will split their vote that Christie would still win easily.
If only the Constitution had provided some mechanism for deciding this very issue…
If only…
It’s not rocket science. Congress has enumerated powers. But to keep it simple, the most frequent use of federal power is the commerce clause. If it’s not commerce, it’s not under Congress’ power to regulate.
Problem with that is, *everything *is under the commerce clause. Deal with it.
I know the legislature and the executive don’t do that. I think we need a third branch to rule on the Constitutionality of these issues. Then maybe we would put some of this “illegal law” stuff to rest.
Well, as a NJ democrat, I’ve got a tough choice ahead, because Rep. Rush Holt is running too.
On one hand, Corey Booker is virtually a superhero.
On the other hand, I really want to be able to say “MY Senator is a rocket scientist!”
(For those not in Rush Holt’s district - for a long time his campaign/supports gave out bumper stickers stating “My Congressment IS a rocket scientist” because he’s a Ph.D. in Physics and worked at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab at one point before politics. It’s always amused me. YMMV).
It is now a moot point, but this is untrue.
This is untrue as well.
I want to point out that you asked pkbites a question, he politely answered it, and you were rude in your response.
What is untrue? It did happen in Minnesota in 1976, so are you saying it is expressly forbidden under NJ law?
Accusing someon of having a “bullshit statist attitude” is your idea of polite?
I’m sure it did happen in MN. However, NJ currently doesn’t have many restrictions as to who the Governor can appoint. Christie had every right to appoint himself if he so chose.
Well, I AM from NJ 
Seriously though, you are right. But two wrongs don’t make a right. But three rights make a left.
I’m from Texas, and hearing stuff about New Jersey makes me feel a lot better about it.
That’s not true. Commerce=money, and not everything involves money. Nor can Congress create commerce to regulate it.
The three decisions limiting the scope of the Commerce Clause are Lopez, Morrison, and the recent ACA case.
But let’s say you were right. If everything is commerce, then Congress’ power is absolute and we have no Constitution. The Supreme Court would never allow such a thing.
“Statist” does not imply “centralist”. The states are also states.
He in fact did not answer the question. I asked what his reasoning was for picking a few items as being obviously not a matter of federal interest, and his only reply was to spout some slogan about the Tenth Amendment. There is, as you may or may not know, an antigovernment movement politely (yes) called Tenthers, of whome he has now identified himself as an adherent, promoting the latest version of the regressively antebellum notion of this fantasy called “states’ rights”.
And two Wrights make an airplane.
The Tenthers are not a movement, it’s just a pejorative given to federalists by those who support unrestrained federal power. Might as well call those who support the right of Westboro Church to protest “Firsters”, or anti surveillance activists “Fourthers”.
Maybe you haven’t heard. The Civil War is over.
And yet the 10th amendment wasn’t repealed.
All the Civil War did as far as the relationship between the federal government and the states was incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states and empower Congress to protect civil rights.
No, the Reconstruction Amendments did that. What the Civil War did, generally speaking, was establish once and for all that the U.S. is a nation and not an association.