Originally Posted by
gloopy
In that hypothetical example there really is no burden on the government to prove anything except to itself. It can then very easily claim constitutionality while ruling any way it wants to on anything and self declaring itself the final arbiter. The whole thing is based on honest checks and balances and states have to have a way to challenge and in some cases nullify gross over reach. The interstate commerce clause is one of the most abused "butterfly effect" intellectual over reaches in the courts because since everything effects something in some way eventually, its automatically dubbed interstate commerce.
Give me an example of any hypothetical law, power or over reach of the federal government and I can very easily bend it in a sentence or two with interstate commerce and/or general welfare. Add in a constitutional amendment to correct it and in 1 or 2 more sentenences I can effectively nullify any limitation you can think of. So yes, we all want a fair system of dispute resolution, but when the system is corrupted and constantly rules in favor of itself the source of the power that is lent to it will progressively begin to challenge the process.
The pendulum has swung way, way too far in the other direction and a return to a constitutional center is long over due. Interstate commerce and general welfare are being used to erase the 9th and 10th amendments in their entirety.
Gloopy,
I understand where you are coming from with the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause, but your example referenced the First Amendment. With that, I can assure you, the burden of proof is on the government to prove that its law/regulation is at the very least reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose. (But, the way you lay it out, the government would be held to an even higher standard than that.)
From your post, I'm gathering that you believe the Supreme Court is part of the federal government, thus part of the problem. But, from what I've learned, the Court takes First Amendment challenges very seriously. The government has to walk a very tight rope when it tries to regulate speech. In the past, while some regulations of speech were upheld, most failed to meet constitutional muster. So, I can just about assure you that your EPA example of regulation would be struck down.
