Cloning and constitution

[Lynne Henderson]

I fail to see why stem cell research would not fall within the commerce
clause.  With all due respect, the distinction Prof. Reynolds draws between
"science" and "commerce" is strained, and his reading of *lopez* and
*morrison* i nthis piece rathe rlopsided..  His piece overlooks the fact
that there is a market in stem cells  for research and application, and
that is "economic."  Even on the view of *Lopez* and *Morrison,*  the
subject of "cloning" (not really the proper term for therapeutic use of
cells) is a commercial venture and involves commercial transactions in stem
cells. A market in a good, a commodity, falls with in commerce for the
majority.
   Wasn't there a related   conversation on this list last summer(?)
involving discussions of  federal regulation of pharmaceuticals and doctors
that also touched on these issues?
Lynne



At 12:39 PM 4/22/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>On FoxNews.Com today I'm rather critical of President Bush for
>endorsing the anti-cloning bill, since I believe that it flies in the face
>of his promises to respect limited government and enumerated
>powers:
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50840,00.html
>
>As is unfortunately always the case with opeds, the analysis is a
>bit, er, streamlined, but I believe it's correct, and I'm sure that
>people on this list can fill in the argument on their own.
>
>
>Prof. Glenn Harlan Reynolds
>College of Law, University of Tennessee
>1505 W. Cumberland Ave., Knoxville, TN  37996-1810
>
>Attempt no more good than the people can bear.  --Thomas Jefferson

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20020422/0eca73c2/attachment.htm