Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I'll bag on the commerce clause from here to next week and back, thank you very much. The original meaning of regulate was "standardize"

Revisionism. The word "regulate" was interpreted in more or less its modern sense in Gibbons v Ogden, in 1824, merely 35 years after ratification.

"[T]he power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution."

This is not a case where the meaning of the word has drifted from what it meant at the time of the founding. I'm quite conservative in my Constitutional interpretation, but I think conservatives get the Commerce Clause wrong. Its broad and was intended to be. The anti-federalist framers thought the "interstate" part would be a limit, but didn't concieve of a world where every transaction would cross state borders. Indeed, they lived in a world where market transactions were the exception. But saying that we should interpret the plain text more narrowly because the world has changed since then is a very "living Constitution" thing to do.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: