Это хоть по делу. Хотя насчёт "the right-wing trend toward striking down federal statutes under a restrictive reading of the Commerce Clause" - какой, в жопу, тренд после Райха?
Did you read the decision? There's hope. The crux of the argument is that since "the war on drugs" is the interstate proposition, and allowing individuals to grow marijuana for whatever purpose could affect it, it falls under the Commerce Clause.
Also, the truth of the matter is that the Federalist paradigm seems to be failing objectively due to advances in transportation, communications, people's mobility; emergence of the US as the leading international power that no longer could afford isolationist policies, but rather has to actively promote its interests throughout the globe, etc. We live in a much different world than that of the Founding Fathers. Sooner or later the 10th Amendment will fall.
What about the "freedom of (from) religion"? Feinstein asked him if he'd maintain the "total wall of separation", to which he replied that he does not know what "total" means. I found it hilarious. He also said something to the effect that the court has to be more consistent or clear on the subject.
As far as I understand, there is no clear and consistent model of how to incorporate atheism and agnosticism into the non-establishment clause without destroying some of the country's foundations. For example, if you say that religious education is a must and public education is a must, but you can't teach religion in public schools - then something has to give. Before the rise in popularity (esp. among the educated elite) of the atheistic ideas there was no real problem: we teach our form of religion in our state/town/district and let you teach your form of religion in yours. But now come these "principled" SOBs, like that guy from California (who even did not have the custody of his daughter) and we start having all kinds of problems.
Maybe Roberts with his brilliant legal mind will be able to deal with it properly.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-09-19 05:57 pm (UTC)Congress shall make no law.
Date: 2005-09-19 06:48 pm (UTC)Also, the truth of the matter is that the Federalist paradigm seems to be failing objectively due to advances in transportation, communications, people's mobility; emergence of the US as the leading international power that no longer could afford isolationist policies, but rather has to actively promote its interests throughout the globe, etc. We live in a much different world than that of the Founding Fathers. Sooner or later the 10th Amendment will fall.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-24 07:38 pm (UTC)If you’re trying to chart the direction of the country—and I’ll make up a number here—95 percent of it is due to changes in culture and politics. The Court can have some influence on the margins, pushing things a little further in the direction that they’re already moving or sometimes retarding the direction. But 10 years down the line, the society’s going to be pretty much where it would’ve been even if the courts hadn’t said a word about it. I’ve used a metaphor from sound engineering. It’s “noise around zero.” It sort of fluctuates up and down around the trends, so sometimes they’re ahead of the trend. Sometimes they’re behind the trend. The reason why the Rehnquist Court’s economic conservatives won and its social conservatives lost is because that’s what was generally happening in American politics.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-19 07:11 pm (UTC)As far as I understand, there is no clear and consistent model of how to incorporate atheism and agnosticism into the non-establishment clause without destroying some of the country's foundations. For example, if you say that religious education is a must and public education is a must, but you can't teach religion in public schools - then something has to give. Before the rise in popularity (esp. among the educated elite) of the atheistic ideas there was no real problem: we teach our form of religion in our state/town/district and let you teach your form of religion in yours. But now come these "principled" SOBs, like that guy from California (who even did not have the custody of his daughter) and we start having all kinds of problems.
Maybe Roberts with his brilliant legal mind will be able to deal with it properly.