It’s an interesting question to monitor responses to… Libertarians are obviously pro-overturning it. Most small-government types are as well.
Anyone who wants the government as economically intrusive as it is today or more intrusive (I am looking leftwards here) would be against overturning it. Except of course, looking leftwards, you can also see fairly extensive support for marijuana legalization on state levels, so they should be pro-overturning Wickard v. Filburn, since it allows federal government to nullify such legalizations. So it is kinda fun to see lefties torn between wanting bigger government but resenting the very basis of its spread at the same time.
Flip that for the small-government-but-yes-to-war-on-drugs types. Same kind of dilemma, but 180 degrees reversed. The mental gymnastics required to be able to decry Wickard v. Filburn but support the war on drugs that is based on the commerce clause are hilarious.
It’s your opinion if originalists have properly interpreted the constitution. Whether or not you agree with their interpretations doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek to follow how they intended the government should be run.
I disagree. I don’t think the founders had a single intent that can be followed. The Constitution needed in excess of one-thousand peoples consent to become law. Its silly to think they all agreed on a single intent. And indeed we know from their writings that some factions believed the Constitution allowed for a much stronger and more powerful federal gov’t then others did.
People seeking the Founders “true intent” almost always degenerates into an exercise in cherry-picking those particular founders whose quotes can be made to support ones desired outcome.
What we know they did agree on was the actual stuff they put in the Constitution and voted to become law. That includes the Commerce Law, the Necessary and Proper Clause and doesn’t include any caveats like “except for agriculture”. If they intended something different, they should’ve put something different in the Constitution and had people vote on that.
If you don’t understand the argument, they might be. Do you really not understand that you can be in favor of a policy while recognizing that the Constitution doesn’t allow it?
I am vehemently anti-gun, but I disapprove of efforts to restrict gun rights because of the Second Amendment. It’s called nuance.
I disagree with their interpretations, but that’s not the point. The underlying principle is that it’s impossible to know what a legislature intended 300 years ago. Cherry picking quotes from one or two legislators shows what that person understood the language to mean, not what all of those who voted for it meant.
ETA: Remarkably, Simplicio used almost the same words I did in constructing his response. Great minds, and all.
If you think an existing policy is unconstitutional, but you still are promoting it and are in favor of continuing it, that’s not “nuance”. That’s contempt for the Constitution.
Apparently you weren’t responding to me when you wrote your post there, because I was talking about “small-government-but-yes-to-war-on-drugs” types. That’s the “you” in my post. It’s an abstract “you”. Would you prefer I used “one”?
Obviously MJ liberalization isn’t a strictly left-wing agenda, although I will concede that supporters probably tend to be somewhere in the range between traditional leftism and small government libertarianism. But because the debate on cannabis is so distinct from the general left-right argument, it’s interesting to see that the most strident dissent with regard to Raich came from Clarence Thomas (see the Wiki article). Truly a case of strange bedfellows, indeed.
