Originally Posted by
furloughfuntime
The Commerce Clause has very broad implications, and I think you don't truly understand those.
"
The Commerce Clause is the source of federal drug prohibition laws under the Controlled Substances Act. In a 2005 medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Even if no goods were sold or transported across state lines, the Court found that there could be an indirect effect on interstate commerce and relied heavily on a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because the aggregate effect of individual consumption could have an indirect effect on interstate commerce."
This standard could most certainly be applied to congress mandating the use of masks in all commercial establishments because the virus' spread has already significantly affected interstate commerce.
In any case, saying that there is an issue of constitutionality preventing the President from exercising even the most basic level of leadership is ridiculous. This is just the latest excuse in a string of transparent excuses. The man has failed this country and betrayed the constitution (see emoluments clause). Pointing to Trump's incompetency as somehow respecting the constitution is an impressive level of mental gymanstics
My point had little to do with the interstate commerce clause and much to do with the intrusion of the federal branches of government into states' rights. For anyone with any common sense to assert that some guy growing pot in his back yard for his own use will, in any way, affect interstate commerce is ludicrous. That does not stop the courts from inserting themselves into the case and asserting a broad interpretation of the commerce clause to achieve their goals.
I am not defending Trump except to the extent that he is respecting states' rights and being skewered for it. The court was also wrong in the Filburn case. It is a basic human right to grow ones own food. Do you believe the court was correct in Dred Scott, Buck vs Bell, Korematsu vs US, Plessy vs Ferguson, etc. The court does get it wrong from time to time.